--  Lj 


United  States  Tariff  Commission 


INFORMATION 


CONCERNING 


OPTICAL  GLASS  and 

CHEMICAL  GLASSWARE 


PRINTED  FOR  THE  USE  OF 


COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1919 


INFORMATION 

CONCERNING 

OPTICAL  GLASS  and 
CHEMICAL  GLASSWARE 


PRINTED  FOR  THE  USE  OF 

COMMITTEE  ON  WAYS  AND  MEANS 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1919 


UNITED  STATES  TARIFF  COMMISSION. 

Office :  1322  New  York  Avenue,  Washington,  D.  C. 

COMMISSIONERS. 

F.  W.  TAUSSIG,  Chairman. 

THOMAS  WALKER  PAGE,  Vice  Chairman. 

DAVID  J.  LEWIS. 

WILLIAM  KENT. 

WILLIAM  S.  CULBERTSON. 

EDWARD  P.  COSTIGAN. 


WILLIAM  M.  STEUART,  Secretary. 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


UNITED  STATES  TARIFF  COMMISSION, 

Washington,  June  3,  1919. 
The  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives: 

I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith,  in  accordance  with  your 
request  dated  June  2,  1919,  information   compiled   by  the  United 
States  Tariff  Commission  on  optical  glass  and  chemical  glassware. 
Very  respectfully, 

THOMAS  WALKER  PAGE, 

Vice  Chairman. 


CONTENTS. 


PART  I.— OPTICAL  GLASS.  Pago. 

Letter  of  transmittal 3 

Summary: 

Description 7 

Development  of  a  new  industry 7 

Tariff  considerations 7 

Status  of  the  industry: 

Description 8 

Domestic  production 8 

Experimental  work 8 

Difficulties  encountered  and  progress  made 9 

Materials,  equipment,  and  methods  of  production 10 

Domestic  production  and  consumption 10 

Foreign  production 10 

Imports 10 

Competitive  conditions  and  tariff  considerations 12 

Methods  of  optical-glass  manufacture 13 

PART  II.— CHEMICAL  GLASSWARE. 
Summary: 

Description 17 

Established  as  a  new  industry 17 

Tariff  considerations 17 

Status  of  the  industry: 

Description 18 

Domestic  production 18 

Quantity 18 

Classification  of  products 19 

Materials 19 

Equipment 19 

Methods  and  processes 19 

Organization  and  capitalization 19 

Geographical  distribution 20 

Domestic  production  and  consumption 20 

Exports 20 

Foreign  production 21 

Imports 21 

Tariff  history 21 

Tariff  considerations 21 

Comparative  tests  of  foreign  and  domestic  ware 22 

Views  of  manufacturers,  scientists,  importers,  and  others: 

Tariff  Commission  conference  with  glass  manufacturers 23 

Opinions  of  scientists 25 

Views  of  importers  and  manufacturers 32 

List  of  manufacturers  of  chemical  glassware 34 

List  of  shops  making  lamp-blown  and  volumetric  ware 35 

5 


Part  1.— OPTICAL  GLASS. 

PARAGRAPH  494,  TARIFF  ACT  OF  1913. 

Paragraph  494. — Glass  plates  or  disks,  rough  cut  or  unwrought,  for  use  in  the 
manufacture  of  optical  instruments,  spectacles,  and  eyeglasses,  and  suitable  only 
for  such  use;  provided,  however,  that  such  disks  exceeding  eight  inches  in  diameter 
may  be  polished  sufficiently  to  enable  the  character  of  the  glass  to  be  determined. 
(Free  of  duty.  Act  of  1913.) 


SUMMARY. 

DESCRIPTION. 

Optical  glass,  rough  cut  or  unwrought,  is  the  essential  element  in 
the  manufacture  of  microscopes,  field  glasses,  range  finders,  gun 
sights,  photographic  lenses,  and  other  optical  instruments.  It  is  ad- 
milted  into  the  United  States  free  of  dutv.  Up  to  the  end  of  the 
year  1917,  this  glass  was  not  manufactured  in  the  United  States  and 
nad  been  imported  in  its  unwrought  state,  principally  from  Germany, 
where  many  new  varieties  had  been  developed  after  years  of  scientific 
research  and  experiment.  It  has  been  imported  also  from  France 
and  England. 

Optical  glass  in  a  finished  state  and  as  part  of  completed  optical 
instruments  is  also  free  of  duty,  when  such  instruments  are  imported 
by  educational  institutions  for  their  own  use. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  A  NEW  INDUSTRY. 

The  shutting  out  of  German  imports  and  the  necessities  of  the 
Allied  Governments  soon  exhausted  the  supply  of  optical  glass  in 
the  United  States.  In  1917  scientists  of  the  Carnegie  Institution 
and  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Standards  cooperated  with  four 
American  manufacturers  and  succeeded  in  producing  certain  varieties 
of  optical  glass  which  met  the  requirements  of  the  Army  and  Navy. 

These  manufacturers  have  built  and  equipped  factories  for  the 
production  of  the  optical  glass  required  for  domestic  consumption. 
The  quantity  needed  for  this  purpose  is  not  large  either  in  time  of 
war  or  peace,  but  that  the  industry  is  essential  was  established  by 
our  experience  in  the  war. 

In  Germany,  France,  and  England  the  industry  has  been  expanded 
since  1914. 

TARIFF  CONSIDERATIONS. 

The  advantages  possessed  by  Germany  and  other  countries  are 
such  that  this  new  American  industry  is  unequal  to  successful  com- 
petition with  the  countries  named  on  the  basis  of  continued  free  im- 
portation of  the  foreign  product.  American  manufacturers  desire 
the  repeal  of  paragraph  573  of  the  tariff  act  of  1913,  which  admits, 

7 


8 


KEPORT   OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 


duty  free,  complete  optical  instruments  imported,  for  scientific  use 
in  educational  institutions  for  the  reason  that  a  very  large  part  of  the 
total  domestic  demand  comes  from  these  institutions. 

STATUS  OF  THE  INDUSTRY. 
DESCRIPTION. 

Optical  glass  of  the  highest  grade  is  the  essential  element  in  the 
making  of  microscopes,  field  glasses,  range  finders,  gun  sights,  peri- 
scopes, aiming  circles,  photographic  lenses,  and  other  optical  instru- 
ments. While  this  glass  is  indispensable  in  directing  and  control- 
ling the  firing  of  modern  artillery  and  of  naval  and  military  ordnance 
in  general,  the  quantities  needed  for  range  finders,  gun  sights,  trench 
periscopes,  etc.,  are  not  great  in  any  country,  even  in  time  of  war. 
For  microscopes,  field  glasses,  and  other  instruments  used  in  time  of 
peace  there  will  be  a  steady  and  increasing,  though  limited,  demand. 

DOMESTIC    PRODUCTION. 

The  production  of  optical  glass  in  the  United  States  from  April  to 
October,  1918,  inclusive,  as  shown  by  the  War  Industries  Board,  was 
as  follows: 

Optical  glatt  plates  or  disks,  rough  cut  or  unwrought. 

PRODUCTION  IN  UNITED  STATES,  1918. 


April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August. 

Septem- 
ber. 

October. 

Ordinary  crown  

Pounds. 
6,072.00 
3,  760.  00 
3,435.00 
7,914.50 
5,  272.  00 
488.00 
1,215.50 

Pounds. 
8,264.75 
8,  842.  75 
9,  122.  25 
10,  255.  75 
7,791.50 
1,511.50 
750.00 

Pounds. 
8,322.75 
12,681.00 
10,989.75 
22,  397.  00 
24,835.00 
4,220.25 
1,850.00 

Pounds. 
6,999.50 
13,  726.  50 
3,117.25 
21,845.25 
7,291.75 
3,972.00 
k       210.  00 

Pounds. 
14,983.00 
20,018.25 
7,003.75 
21,175.00 
23,973.25 
2,454.50 
3,631.25 

Pounds. 
6,  890.  37 
21,107.31 
12,428.75 
12,765.37 
15,327.50 
15.50 
1,031.00 
702.00 

Pounds. 
8,  372.  25 
22,379.87 
11,529.75 
25,731.31 
21,516.25 
6,034.25 

Boro-silipatc 

Barium  crown  

I.ieht  flint 

Dense  flint             

Baryta  flint   . 

Very  li"ht  flint 

Total 

28,  157.  00 

46,  538.  50 

85,295.75 

56,862.25 

93,  239.  00 

70,267.81 

95,  563.  68 

Experimental  work. — Prior  to  the  year  1918  there  was  practically 
no  production  of  optical  glass  in  the  United  States.  One  American 
company  built  an  experimental  optical  glass  plant  in  1912  and  by 
1914  was  able  to  produce  a  few  types  of  glass  which  were  used  in 
optical  instruments.  Manufacturers  of  optical  instruments  up  to 
1914  were  able  to  obtain  optical  glass  of  the  best  quality  from  Europe, 
the  general  supply  coming  from,  three  great  firms,  one  in  Germany,  one 
in  France,  ana  one  in  England.  But  by  the  end  of  1914  the  importa- 
tion of  optical  glass  had  become  difficult  and  uncertain  and  three 
American  firms  and  the  Bureau  of  Standards  beo;an  to  experiment 
in  making  it.  When  the  United  States  entered  the  war  in  1917  the 
demands  of  the  Army  and  Navy  required  the  making  of  the  glass  in 
this  country,  and  the  scientists  of  the  Geophysical  Laboratory  of  the 
Carnegie  Institution  were  called  upon  to  aid  the  manufacturers  in  its 
production. 

The  beginning  of  the  optical-glass  industry  in  the  United  States 
and  its  development  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  Government  were 


OPTICAL  GLASS.  9 

stated  to  the  Tariff  Commission  by  Capt.  F.  E.  Wright,  Army  repre- 
sentative of  optical  glass  and  instruments  for  the  War  Industries 
Board.  Capt.  Wright  was  in  charge  of  optical-glass  production  for 
the  geophysical  laboratory  of  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Wash- 
ington: 

Optical  glass,  although  not  requirpd  in  large  quantities,  is  nevertheless  an  important 
item  in  war  op  rations,  because  by  the  use  of  optical  instruments  much  of  the  firing, 
esp?cially  by  artillery,  is  directed  and  controlled.  If  the  men  are  not  equipped  with 
fire-control  instruments  and  can  not  s?e  to  aim  prop  rly  their  firing  can  serve  little 
purpose.  This  situation  was  not  adequately  realized  by  manufacturers  in  this  country 
before  the  war,  and  little  effort  was  made  to  produce  optical  glass.  Manufacturers  of 
optical  instruments  were  able  to  obtain  optical  glass  in  desired  quality  and  quantity 
from  Europ:',  and  consequently  did  not  feel  the  necessity  for  making  it  themselves. 
In  19J2,  however,  the  Bausch  &  Lomb  Optical  Co.,  thraugh  the  efforts  of  Mr.  William 
Bausch,  built  an  experimental  optical-sflass  plant,  and  placed  a  practical  glass  maker, 
Mr.  V.  Martin,  in  charge.  By  1914  this  company  was  able  to  produce-  a  few  types  of 
optical  glass  which  were  us-^d  in  optical  instruments.  By  the  end  of  1914  the  impor- 
tation of  optical  glass  had  become  difficult  and  uncertain.  Other  firms,  as  Keuffel  <fc 
Ess-"!-,  Spmcer  Lens  Co.,  and  also  the  Bureau  of  Standards,  began  to  experiment  in 
making  optical  glass.  E'.v  1917,  when  the  United  States  had  entered  the  war,  the 
optical-glass  situation  had  become  critical;  the  European  supply  was  practically  cut 
off;  optical  glass  had  to.be  made  in  this  country  if  our  Army  and  Navv  were  to  receive 
the  fire-control  instruments  which  they  needed.  The  geophysical  laboratory  of  the 
Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington  was  called  upon  to  aid  in  the  production  of  high- 
grade  optical  glass.  A  party  from  the  laboratorv  was  stationed,  in  April,  1917,  at 
the  plant  of  the  Bausch  &  Lomb  Optical  Co.,  and  for  seven  months  all  efforts  of  the 
laboratory  were  concentrated  at  this  plant.  By  the  end  of  1917  the  essential  details 
of  the  manufacture  had  been  developed,  and  glass  in  considirabl"  quantities  was 
being  produced.  The  efforts  of  the  laboratory  wtre  then  extended  to  the  Sp°ncer 
Lens  Co.  and  the  Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Co.  At  the  present  time  large  quantities  of 
optical  glass  of  the  kinds  needed  for  military  lire-control  instruments  are  being  pro- 
duc"d  of  a  quality  equal  in  practically  every  risp:  ct  to  the  best  European  glass. 

The  production  of  this  glass  has  been  an  urgent  military  necessity.  The  required 
information  on  details  of  manufacture  has  been  gained  at  very  consielerable  expense. 

Difficulties  encountered  and  progress  made. — At  the  Pittsburgh  hear- 
ings of  the  Tariff  Commission  statements  were  made  explanatory  of 
the  difficulties  encountered  and  the  progress  that  had  been  made. 
In  his  testimony  Dr.  John  A.  Brashear  said: 

You  elo  not  know  how  we  have  been  handicapped  on  account  of  lack  of  material 
to  make  the  things  that  the  Government  is  wanting  so  badly.  1  think  we  have  refused 
to  handle  in  our  workshop  over  half  a  million  dollars  worth  of  orders  from  the  Gov- 
ernment because  we  had  no  way  in  which  to  fill  them.  Yet  the  Government  needs 
those  things.  I  think  we  have  99.000  pieces  to  make  of  this  article  (indicating  small 
piece  of  glass].  There  are  11  pieces  to  each  article.  1  think  we  have  orders  for 
9.000  sets,  which  would  make  99,000  pieces.  This  instrument  is  a  minatr.re  peris- 
cope to  be  used  in  the  trenches  to  locate  places  from  which  shot?  are  being  fired  and 
to  locate  those  places  within  4  or  5  seconds  of  an  arc.  and  these  pieces  have  to  be  made 
with  a  precision  of  which  you  have  no  idea.  We  must  get  the  material,  anel  those 
people  are  going  to  give  it  to  us.  The  Pittsburgh  Plate  Glass  Co.  now  has  two  Gov- 
ernment experts  from  the  Bureau  of  Standards,  and  the  Carnegie  Institution  at  Wash- 
ington has  sent  either  two  or  four  of  their  men  to  give  them,  as  far  as  they  can,  the 
chemical  equivalents,  the  technique,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  My  little  firm  on 
the  hill  is  doing  everything  it  can  to  help. 

At  the  present  time,  of  course,  we  have  none  of  the  optical  glass  made  by  the  Ger- 
mans. They  have  developed  28  new  kinds  of  glass,  and  one  of  those  kinds  was  the 
glass  that  we  use  entirely  now  for  range  finders  and  for  gun  sights  for  the  Navy,  for 
which  we  now  have  orders  for  some  5,000.  It  is  also  used  for  the  panoramic  sight. 
I  happen  to  have  a  couple  of  pieces  of  that  glass  here.  1 1  ore  is  one  of  the  pieces, 
which  is  a  little  bit  soiled  [indicating  a  small  bit  of  glass].  Here  is  another  piece  [indi- 
cating glass].  This  is  made  for  what  is  called  the  panoramic  sight,  which  requires  a 
precision  \\hich  would  not  have  been  dreamed  of  20  years  ago.  This  piece  of  glass 
[indicating]  has  to  have  its  angle  corrected  to  2  seconds  of  an  arc  and  its  surface  has 
to  be  correct  to  the  one  one-hundred-thousandths  of  an  inch.  Of  course,  we  are 

128893—19 2 


10  REPORT  OF   THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

able  to  do  that;  in  fact,  we  can  test  them  within  one  ten-millionth  of  an  inch.     The 
French  have  also  taken  that  glass  up  and  make  it  successfully. 

To-day  we  are  making  instruments  for  the  Army  that  will  photograph  the  flight  of 
a  cannon  ball.  It  took  40  minates  to  take  the  first  picture  of  the  human  face  in  1839 
and  to-day,  by  the  use  of  a  photochronograph,  we  record  the  flight  of  a  cannon  ball. 
We  can  photograph  it  inside  the  gun  or  outside  the  gun  for  a  great  distance. 

Materials. — In  American  factories  the  materials  used  in  the  manu- 
facture of  optical  glass  are  silica,  alkali,  lime,  lead,  baryta,  zinc, 
alumina,  and  boron. 

The  Bureau  of  Standards  has  developed  clay  crucibles  in  which 
the  glass  is  melted  and  brought  to  perfection. 

Domestic  production  and  consumption. — While  optical  glass  of  the 
highest  quality  has  been  successfully  produced  and  the  capacity  of 
factories  has  been  sufficient  to  meet  olomestic  needs,  it  is  evident  that 
the  industry  is  not  yet  able  to  supply  all  the  grades  and  kinds  of 
glass  for  which  there  is  a  demand.  In  1913  we  imported  optical 
plates  and  disks  valued  at  $506,594,  and  in  1914  at  $617,703,  of 
which  50  per  cent  came  from  Germany  and  27  per  cent  came  from 
England.  In  1917  the  value  of  the  imports  was  $238,258,  and  in 
1918  there  was  an  increase  to  $275,295.  The  decrease  from  former 
years  in  1917  and  1918  is  due  in  part  to  the  establishment  of  this 
new  industry  in  the  United  States. 

FOREIGN   PRODUCTION. 

Statistics  of  foreign  production  are  not  available,  but  the  potential 
power  of  foreign  competitors  is  indicated  in  their  export  trade  and 
in  the  great  advantages  they  have  had  in  the  earlier  scientific  devel- 
opment of  this  product.  The  statistics  of  exports  of  this  particular 
kind  of  glass  are  meager  and  not  reported  at  all  for  some  countries. 

In  1913  Germany  exported  optical  glass  of  various  kinds,  valued 
at  $7,900,172,  classified  as  follows:  Rough  optical  glass,  $271,320; 
lenses,  $2,528,274;  and  other  optical  glass,  $5,100,578.  In  the  same 
year  France  exported  lenses  valued  at  $493,887,  and  other  optical 
glass,  $18,760. 

The  manufacture  of  optical  glass  requires  scientific  knowledge  of  a 
high  order  as  well  as  exceptional  skill.  It  is  one  of  peculiar  technical 
difficulties,  both  chemical  and  mechanical.  Prof.  Abbe,  in  Ger- 
many in  1876,  in  making  an  appeal  for  assistance  and  cooperation  in 
the  continuance  of  experimental  work,  said,  "The  future  of  the 
microscope  as  regards  further  improvement  in  its  dioptric  qualities 
seems  to  be  chiefly  in  the  hands  of  the  glassmakers,"  and  "not 
microscopy  alone  is  here  affected,  but  all  sciences  and  arts  that  need 
optical  appliances."  This  appeal  resulted  in  a  Government  subsidy  in 
aid  of  a  scientific  investigation  in  1881,  and  after  five  years  of  research 
and  experiment,  the  Germans  wrere  successfully  engaged  in  the  whole- 
sale production  of  optical  glass  in  a  number  of  varieties.  The  formu- 
lae and  methods  of  production  were  kept  secret,  and  a  practical 
monopoly  was  established. 


IMPORTS. 


In  1913  optical  glass  plates  and  disks,  rough  cut  and  unwrought, 
of  the  value  of  $506,594,  were  imported  into  the  United  States. 
In  the  following  fiscal  year  the  value  of  the  imports  of  this  glass 


OPTICAL   GLASS. 


11 


increased  to  $617,703;  in  1915  they  decreased  to  $495,179,  and  in 
1916,  1917,  and  1918  to  $265,389,  $238,258,  and  $275,295,  re- 
spectively. In  1913  and  1914  the  imports  from  Germany  were  50 
per  cent  of  the  total,  while  those  from  England  were  27  per  cent  of 
the  total.  In  1918  the  imports  from  England  were  73  per  cent  of 
the  total,  and  were  also  40  per  cent  in  excess  of  imports  from  England 
in  1913.  English  exports  to  the  United  States  probably  included 
reexports.  Imports  from  Germany  and  Belgium  have  ceased. 
Imports  from  France  in  1913  were  18  per  cent  of  the  total,  and  in 
1918,  26  per  cent. 

Glass  plates  or  disks,  rough  cut  or  unwrought. 

IMPORTS  BY  COUNTRIES. 
[Fiscal  years.] 


Imported  from  — 

Imports  of  plates  or  disks  (optical  glass),  rough  cut  or  un- 
wrought, for  optical  purposes. 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

19181 

England...     .                        .           .... 

$141,898 
92,977 
18,  894 

$159,851 
98,  832 
68,354 

$184,031 
52,028 
12,164 
1,630 
244,632 

$174,926 
60,934 

$190,  096 
39,  762 

$200,066 
71,  235 

France  

Belgium  .  .  . 

Netherlands 

Germany.... 

249,  471 
127 
1,227 

290,154 
198 
314 

18,982 

6,197 

All  other  

694 

10,547 

2,203 

3,994 

Total  

504,  594 

617,  703 

495,  179 

265,389 

238,  258 

275,  295 

Imported  from  — 

Imports  of  lenses  and  other  optical  instruments  (including 
spectacles). 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918  » 

United  Kingdom  

$103,992 
235 
392,  513 
4,161 
103 
173,813 

840,126 
207 
403,  801 
14,  807 
6 
237,  596 
20,  794 
4,223 

$15,414 
111 
165,948 
4,099 
683 
104,  473 
6,898 
5,345 

$7,  861 
1,331 
128,  895 

$8,366 
8,302 
121,068 

$18,483 
24,  871 
69,  177 

Japan 

France 

Belgium  

NfithfirlaTids 

258 
10,478 
123 
17,  820 

4 
962 
22 
7,  537 

Germany  

Austria-Hungary  

16,592 
3,726 

All  other 

4.118 

Total 

695,  135 

721,  560 

302,  971 

166,  766 

146,  261 

116,649 

1  Imports  during  the  6  months  ending  December,  1918,  $170,762. 

2  Imports  during  the  6  months  ending  December,  1918,  $77,239. 

In  addition  to  the  imports  of  unmanufactured  optical  glass,  large 
amounts  are  imported  in  a  manufactured  condition  as  the  essential 
parts  of  lenses  and  other  optical  instruments,  including  spectacles. 
In  1913  the  value  of  the  imports  of  lenses  and  other  optical  instru- 
ments, including  spectacles,  was  $695,135,  and  in  1914,  S721.560. 
In  the  years  following,  these  imports  have  gradually  decreased  to 
$116,649  in  1918.  From  France  in  1913  these  imports  were  56  per 
cent  of  the  total,  from  Germany  25  per  cent,  and  from  England  14 
per  cent.  For  the  six  months  ending  December,  1918,  the  imports 
of  unwrought  glass  were  $170,762  and  of  lenses  and  other  optical 
instruments  $77,239,  both  showing  decided  increases  over  the 
previous  year. 


12  REPORT  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

COMPETITIVE    CONDITIONS   AND   TARIFF   CONSIDERATIONS. 

This  new  industry  in  the  United  States  has  the  materials,  the 
scientific  knowledge,  the  equipment,  and  the  capacity  to  compete 
with  some  of  the  Sest  products  of  foreign  manufacture.  During  the 
past  three  years  Germanj7  has  heen  shut  out  of  our  market  and 
American  manufactures  have  perfected  and  increased  their  output. 

We  have  not  as  yet  produced  all  of  the  varieties  required  for 
domestic  consumption;  we  are  still  (1918)  obliged  to  import  about 
one-half  of  the  normal  amounts  (1913-14)  of  unwrought  and  rough 
cut  optical  glass  and  in  addition  large  quantities  of  optical  glass  in  a 
finished  condition  as  parts  of  optical  instruments.  In  December, 
1917,  we  were  making  but  a  few  fundamental  varieties  of  optical 
glass.  At  that  time  a  scientific  authority  l  stated  that  "The  four 
most  necessary  varieties  of  glass,  to  wit,  a  very  light  and  transparent 
crown  suitable  for  field  glass  prisms,  an  ordinary  crown  of  slightly 
higher  index,  a  typical  heavy  flint,  and  a  typical  light  flint,  are 
already  in  production.  The  two  next  in  importance  are  a  heavy  baryta 
crown  and  a  light  baryta  flint  used  particularly  in  photographic 
lenses,  and  these,  we  learn,  are  under  way,  with  every  prospect  of 
reaching  suitable  commercial  developments.  If  a  good  supply  of 
well  annealed  material,  even  of  the  half-dozen  sorts  here  enumerated, 
can  be  had,  the  country  will  be  in  pretty  good  shape  to  make  its  own 
optical  instruments.  The  matter  of  suitable  mixing  and  annealing 
for  the  production  of  disks  of  large  size  may  be  trusted  to  the  future."2 

It  was  not  until  after  five  years  of  scientific  research  and  experi- 
ment that  the  Jena  works,  of  German}',  developed  28  new  kinds  of 
optical  glass.  This  firm  had  the  advantage  of  25  years'  experience 
in  producing  optical  glass  and  in  this  field  was  practically  without  a 
competitor.  It  is  not  reasonable  to  expect  that  American  manu- 
facturers and  scientists  could,  in  less  than  three  years,  attain  the 
required  standards  of  knowledge  and  efficiency  to  meet  the  demands 
of  domestic  consumption  and  the  inroads  of  foreign  competition. 

During  the  war  the  optical  industries  of  Germany,  France,  and 
England  have  been  driven  to  a  high  state  of  industrial  activity  and 
the  scientific  precision  essential  in  the  production  of  perfect  optical 
glass.  Under  the  tariff  act  of  1913  optical  glass  is  admitted  free  of 
duty  into  the  United  States.  The  new  American  industry  under 
such  conditions  is  unequal  to  the  task  of  engaging  in  successful  com- 
petition with  the  output  of  the  highly  developed  industry  and  the 
experienced  scientists  and  manufacturers  of  the  countries  named. 

Under  paragraph  573  of  the  tariff  act  of  1913,  the  optical  glass 
imported  in  a  finished  state  as  part  of  optical  instruments  is  also  free 
of  duty  when  imported  by  educational  institutions  for  scientific  use 
and  for  experimental  purposes. 

Unwrought  optical  glass  producers  desire  adequate  protection  for 
their  new  industry  in  order  to  stimulate  greater  production  for 
educational  and  commercial  requirements  and  for  the  further  develop- 
ment of  optical  scientific  instruments  of  the  finest  accuracy.  They 
ask  for  the  repeal  of  paragraph  573  which  admits  such  instruments 
free  of  duty  to  educational  institutions. 

1  Metallurgical  and  Chemical  Engineering  Journal,  Dec.  15,  1917. 
'  In  February,  1919,  all  types  of  glass  were  being  made.    See  p.  15. 


METHODS  OF  OPTICAL  GLASS  MANUFACTURE. 

The  usual  practice  in  the  manufacture  of  optical  glass  consists  of 
the  following  sequence  of  furnace  operations : 

The  pot  is  carefully  preheated  in  a  small  subsidiary  furnace  called 
a  pot  arch;  from  there  it  is  "set"  or  transferred  to  the  furnace. 
The  pot  is  usually  set  at  a  temperature  of  about  1,050°  C.,  and  it 
must  be  heated  up  to  the  melting  temperature  of  the  glass  batch, 
about  1,400  degrees  for  most  glasses,  before  filling.  The  best  prac- 
tice is  to  overburn  the  pot  before  commencing  the  fill. 

The  batch,  or  batch  mixed  with  cullet,  is  fed  into  the  pot  in  several 
installments,  until  the  fill  is  complete.  The  details  of  this  process 
differ  from  plant  to  plant. 

After  the  fill  is  complete,  the  glass  is  left  undisturbed  for  several 
hours,  primarily  to  give  time  for  the  bubbles  to  rise  to  the  surface. 
The  temperature  during  this  period  is  high;  in  some  places  it  is  the 
practice  to  use  a  higher  temperature  for  the  fining  operation  than  for 
the  fill. 

After  the  fining  period  is  complete,  it  is  customary  to  stir  the  glass 
by  hand,  intermittently;  a  common  schedule  is  to  hand  stir  for  15 
minutes  every  two  hours.  This  process  removes  the  bubbles  of  gas 
adhering  to  the  side  and  bottom  of  the  pot,  and  helps  to  secure  uni- 
formity in  composition. 

After  the  period  of  intermittent  hand  stirring  is  complete,  the  glass 
is  stirred  continuously,  a  stirring  machine  being  used.  As  a  rule, 
soon  after  putting  on  the  machine,  the  fire  is  turned  off  and  the  glass 
allowed  to  cool,  stirring  being  continued  until  the  pot  is  removed 
from  the  furnace.  The  operations  summarized  above  take  from  two 
to  three  days  in  the  furnace,  the  actual  time  depending  on  local 
practice.  When,  as  is  usually  the  case,  the  empty  pots  are  pre- 
heated in  pot  arches,  and  the  finished  glass  cooled  in  an  appropriate 
subsidiary  apparatus,  a  melting  furnace  will  yield  one  pot  of  glass 
every  two  days. 

New  schedule  doubled  production.- — After  considerable  experience  in 
manufacturing  optical  glass,  certain  of  the  usual  operations  seemed  to 
be  inadequate  or  illogical,  and  soon  after  taking  charge  of  the  optical 
glass  plant  of  the  Spencer  Lens  Co.  for  the  War  Industries  Board,  I 
devised  a  new  schedule  radically  different  from  the  above,  which  may 
be  called  the  "24-hour"  process.  Because  of  its  importance  in 
practically  doubling  the  production  of  optical  glass,  a  basic  material 
in  the  manufacture  of  fire-control  instruments  the  details  of  the  proc- 
ess were  communicated  to  the  military  optical  glass  and  instrument 
section  of  the  War  Industries  Board,  and  were  communicated  by 
them  to  the  other  manufacturers  of  optical  glass. 

In  the  first  place,  the  filling  operation  required  modification. 
Melting  of  the  batch  takes  place  from  the  top  downward;  the  upper 
layers  sinter  together,  then  the  more  easily  fusible  components  trickle 
down,  leaving  the  upper  layers  impoverished  in  the  substances  usu- 
ally called  "fluxes."  This  results  in  the  surface  becoming  high  in 

L3 


14  REPORT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

silica;  this  is  proved  by  skimmings  from  both  crown  and  flint  batches, 
which  not  only  showed  an  actual  accumulation  of  partially  dissolved 
quartz  grains,  but  also  had  a  refractive  index  lower  than  that  of  the 
rest  of  the  glass 

Harmful  effects  of  jinxes  settling  to  the  bottom  overlooked. — The  fluxes, 
especially  lead,  tend  to  settle  to  the  bottom;  this  is  proved  by  the 
dark  layer  always  brought  up  when  hand  stirring  is  begun,  by  tests 
made  by  plunging  a  long  iron  rod  into  the  glass  and  quickly  with- 
drawing it,  and  by  the  examination  of  partially  melted  pots  which 
have  been  removed  from  the  furnace  because  of  leaks  and  breaks 
after  cooling.  In  the  latter  case  the  preponderance  of  silica  men- 
tioned above  has  also  been  observed. 

This  initial  inhomogeneity,  it  is  true,  is  removed  by  the  subsequent 
stirring  operation,  and  this  probably  accounts  for  its  harmful  effects 
having  been  overlooked.  One  of  these  harmful  effects,  especially  in 
flint  glasses,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  lead-rich  mixtures  (for  example,  the 
extra-dense  flints)  are  extremely  corrosive  on  the  pots.  By  the 
older  process  this  lead-rich  layer  is  allowed  to  lie  on  the  bottom  of 
the  pot  throughout  the  filling  and  the  fining  periods,  both  of  which 
periods  are  of  some  hours'  duration  and  of  extremely  high  tempera- 
tures. This  necessarily  results  in  greatly  increased  pot  corrosion.  In 
addition,  the  impoverishment  of  the  upper  layers  in  fluxes  increases 
the  time  required  for  complete  solution  of  the  batch  ingredients. 

Stirring  during  fill  the  remedy. — The  obvious  remedy  is  to  stir 
during  the  fill.  This  is  not  feasible  until  the  pot  is  a  little  over  hah* 
full,  because  the  stirring  rod  can  not  be  floated  before  this,  but  as 
soon  as  feasible  it  should  be  begun,  and  the  melt  should  be  stirred 
each  time  a  new  batch  is  added.  Making  such  a  stir  during  the  fill 
should  diminish  pot  corrosion,  give  glass  of  a  better  quality,  freer 
from  color,  striae  and  stones,  and  should  hasten  the  solution  of  the 
batch  and  thereby  shorten  the  melting  process.  After  the  fill  is 
completed,  the  glass  must  be  freed  from  bubbles  of  gas  arising  from 
the  decomposition  of  carbonates  and  nitrates  in  the  batch  and  from 
the  water  in  the  batch  ingredients.  In  some  cases  these  volatile 
components  comprise  one-fifth  of  the  weight  of  batch  filled.  By  the 
old  process  the  bubbles  are  mainly  removed  during  the  fining  opera- 
tion, the  glass  being  kept  hot  and  undisturbed  for  some  time  to  allow 
the  bubbles  to  rise  to  the  surface.  The  intermittent  hand  stir  fol- 
lowing supplements  the  fining  period  by  removing  the  layer  of 
bubbles  which  adheres  to  the  pot  walls,  and  also  tends  to  secure 
uniformity  in  composition  throughout  the  melt. 

Stirring  the  logical  way  to  remove  bubbles. — That  seemed  an  illog- 
ical way  to  secure  the  desired  result.  In  the  first  place,  common 
experience  is  that  bubbles  in  other  liquids  are  more  rapidly  re- 
moved by  stirring  than  by  quiescence.  It  seemed  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  in  a  pot  of  glass  also  the  bubbles  will  be  more  rapidly 
removed  by  stirring.  Moreover,  in  the  usual  process  the  glass  is 
not  homogeneous  in  composition  until  after  the  fining  period;  the 
upper  layer  is  deficient  in  fluxes,  and  hence  melts  less  rapidly  than 
the  mass  of  the  glass.  The  margin  in  composition  between  an 
unworkable  viscous  glass  and  a  workable  glass  is  a  narrow  one;  the 
stirring  should  prevent  the  upper  portion  being  deficient  in  fluxes 
and  hence  too  viscous  to  permit  the  free  passage  of  bubbles.  It 


OPTICAL  GLASS.  15 

seemed  a  reasonable  supposition,  therefore,  that  two  of  the  operations 
to  which  optical  glass  is  usually  subjected  could  be  dispensed  with, 
namely,  the  long  fining  period  and  the  period  of  intermittent  hand 
stirring.  In  other  words,  it  seemed  that  better  results  could  be 
obtained  by  putting  on  the  stirring  machine  immediately  after  the 
fill,  and  stirring  continuously  until  the  glass  was  free  from  bubbles. 
With  this  modification  could  well  be  combined  a  hand  stir  during 
the  fill,  as  mentioned  before. 

Results,  prove  reasoning  good. — The  best  test  of  this  reasoning  is  the 
results.  The  new  schedule  was  tried  out  on  a  melt  of  flint  glass  hav- 
ing an  index  of  1.617.  The  melt  was  run  at  the  usual  temperature 
for  this  glass,  1,390°  C.  Fills  were  made  at  two-hour  intervals,  the 
first  fill  Being  about  one-third  of  the  total  batch,  and  on  each  subse- 
quent fill  the  pot  was  heaped  up  with  batch.  As  soon  as  possible  a 
Hand  stir  was  made;  10  hours  after  the  first  fill  the  stirring  machine 
was  put  on;  at  this  time  there  was  still  undissolved  batch,  not  all 
quartz.  The  stirring  machine  was  run  at  a  good  speed,  both  with  a 
circular  and  with  a  vertical  motion. 

After  six  hours  the  glass  seemed  free  from  bubbles;  the  fire  was 
accordingly  turned  off  and  the  pot  cooled  and  removed  as  usual. 
The  entire  process,  from  the  time  the  pot  was  set  until  the  melt  was 
out  of  the  furnace  and  another  pot  set,  was  24  hours.  When  the  glass 
was  examined  it  proved  to  be  of  the  best  quality,  wholly  free  from 
bubbles,  of  greatly  improved  color,  and  also  freer  from  striee  than 
usual. 

Special  schedules  for  different  types  of  glass. — The  details  of  the  proc- 
ess were  subsequently  modified,  and  special  schedules  were  worked 
out  for  the  different  types  of  glass.  Following  is  a  sample  schedule, 
being  that  for  a  flint  having  Nd=  1.617  — 36.5.  The  pot  used  is  26 
inches  high  and  28  inches  in  diameter,  inside  dimensions.  The  time 
of  filling  in  the  cullet  is  taken  as  zero  hour. 

Schedule  for  MF  glass. 

Hours.  FRun  at  1,390°  C.] 

0.  00 Add  cullet. 

1.  00 Fill  pot  three-quarters  full  of  batch. 

2.  30 Fill  pot  with  batch. 

4.  00 Hand  stir;  fill  pot  with  batch. 

5.  30 Hand  stir;  fill  pot  with  batch. 

7.  00 Hand  stir;  fill  pot  with  batch. 

7.  30 Stiiring  machine  on. 

15.  00 Gas  off. 

When  cooled  to  the  proper  temperature  the  pot  of  glass  is  removed 
from  the  furnace,  and  slowly  cooled  in  a  pot  arch.  A  new  pot  is  set 
into  the  furnace,  and  given  a  preliminary  burning,  so  that  in  24  hours 
all  is  ready  for  another  melt. 

It  may  be  well  to  emphasize  one  point  of  difference  between  the 
longer  process  and  the  24-hour  process.  In  the  former  the  melt, 
often  with  an  unduly  corrosive  layer  on  the  bottom,  remained  in 
contact  with  the  hot  "pot  for  from  20  to  30  hours  from  the  time  the 
last  fill  was  made  until  the  gas  was  turned  off;  in  the  24-hour  process 
the  corresponding  period  of  maximum  corrosive  action  is  5  to  6 
hours.  As  the  majority  of  the  contamination  of  glass,  with  our 
present  raw  materials,  comes  from  the  pot,  the  superiority  of  the 
newer  process  is  obvious.  Better  color  results  from  smaller  pot 


16  REPORT   OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

contamination,  as  well  as  a  greater  freedom  from  atriae,  less  trouble 
from  stones  and  less  pot  breakage. 

Process  proving  a  success. — The  first  experimental  pot  of  glass 
made  by  the  24-hour  process  proved  a  complete  success.  Since  that 
time  some  350  pots  of  glass  have  been  made  by  the  shorter  schedule. 
They  comprise  practically  all  types  of  glass;  flints,  from  an  extra 
dense  flint  with  refractive  index  of  1.76  to  an  extra  light  flint  with 
index  of  1.55;  soft  crowns  and  ordinary  crowns  of  three  different 
types;  several  types  of  borosilicate  crown:  several  barium  crowns, 
both  light  and  dense,  and  several  baryta  flints,  ranging  from  a  light 
baryta  flint  with  index  1.56  to  a  dense  baryta  flint,  index  1.62. 
Without  exception  the  new  process  has  produced  a  better  glass  than 
the  old,  with  a  doubling  of  production  and  correspondingly  lower 
cost.  (George  W.  Morey,  general  manager  of  Spencer  Lens  Glass 
Plant,  Hamburg,  N.  Y.,  and  late  expert  of  Geophysical  Laboratory, 
Washington,  D.  C.) 

Recent  improvements.1 — The  usual  practice  is  to  allow  the  melt  to 
cool  in  the  pot  and  the  latter  is  thereby  destroyed  either  during  cool- 
ing or  in  breaking  up  and  sorting  the  glass.  An  improvement  by  an 
American  manufacturer,  which  has  been  successfully  applied,  con- 
sists in  the  casting  of  or  pouring  the  melted  optical  glass  on  large 
casting  tables,  upon  which  it  is  rolled  out  before  annealing  in  a  large 
sheet,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  making  of  plate  glass.  This 
sheet  or  plate  is  then  ground  and  polished,  defects  cut  out,  and  the 
remainder  cut  to  size  for  final  inspection  and  selection  of  suitable 
lens  pieces. 

Hand  stirring  of  the  glass  in  the  pot  has  been  the  European  prac- 
tice and  also  American,  because  of  the  care  required  in  the  operation. 
Motor-driven  stirring  apparatus  has  been  adopted  to  take  the  place 
of  hand  stirring.  It  has  been  found  that  it  is  necessary  to  have 
sand  with  less  than  one  two-hundredths  per  cent  of  iron  content. 

i  Harrison  E.  Howe  in  Chemical  and  Metallurgical  Engineering. 


Part  II.— CHEMICAL  GLASSWARE. 

PARAGRAPHS  84  AND  573,  TARIFF  ACT  OF  1913. 


That  part  of  paragraph  84  which  includes  chemical  glassware  is  italicized  in  the  following: 

"Glass  bottles,  decanters,  and  all  articles  of  every  description  composed  wholly  or  in  chief  value  of 
glass  *  *  *  and  all  articles  of  every  description,  including  bottles  and  bottle  glassware,  composed  wholly 
or  in  chief  value  of  glass  blown  either  in  a  mold  or  otherwise"  *  *  *,  45  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Chemical  glassware  is  admitted  free  under  paragraph  573. 

Philosophical  and  scientific  apparatus,  utensils,  instruments,  and  preparations,  including  bottles  and 
boxes  containing  the  same,  specially  imported  in  good  faith  for  the  use  and  by  order  of  any  society  or 
institution  incorporated  or  established  solely  for  religious,  philosophical,  educational,  scientific,  or  liter- 
ary purposes,  or  for  the  use  of  any  college,  academy,  school,  or  seminary  of  learning  in  the  United  States 
or  any  State  or  public  library,  arid  not  for  sale,  and  articles  solely  for  experimental  purposes  *  *  *. 

SUMMARY. 

DESCRIPTION. 

Imported  chemical  glass  utensils  are  dutiable  at  45  per  cent 
ad  valorem  under  paragraph  84  of  the  tariff  act  of  1913  if  used  for 
manufacturing  and  commercial  purposes.  They  are  duty  free  under 
paragraph  573  of  the  act  of  1913,  if  imported  for  the  use  of  educa- 
tional institutions.  They  are  essential  for  the  chemical  control  of  a 
number  of  industries  through  their  use  as  utensils  in  laboratory  tests 
and  analysis.  The  chemical  departments  of  universities  and  other 
educational  institutions  use  a  large  proportion  of  this  ware  in  the 
courses  of  instruction  given  to  the  students  of  chemical  and  allied 
subjects. 

ESTABLISHED    AS    A    NEW    INDUSTRY. 

Prior  to  1915  practically  all  of  this  ware  was  imported  mainly  from 
Germany  and  Austria.  Since  that  time  it  has  been  established  as  a 
new  industry  in  the  United  States.  Factory  blown  ware,  such  as 
flasks,  beakers,  tubing  and  blanks,  is  now  being  made  in  seven  old- 
established  glass  factories.  Lamp-blown  and  volumetric  ware  and 
apparatus  are  being  made  in  upward  of  10  shops. 

Scientific  tests  made  by  the  Bureau  of  Standards  in  1918  established 
that  the  flasks  and  beakers  made  in  the  principal  American  factories 
equaled  in  all  cases,  and  surpassed  in  some,  the  best  qualities  of  im- 
ported ware.  Not  only  are  American  factories  now  fully  supplying 
the  domestic  demand,  but  during  1918,  they  exported  chemical  glass- 
ware valued  at  $179,682  to  more  than  17  foreign  countries. 

Estimates  of  imports  in  1913  range  from  SI, 200, 000  to  $1,500,000, 
and  of  these  from  42  to  53  per  cent  were  imported  free  of  duty  to/ 
educational  institutions. 

TARIFF    CONSIDERATIONS. 

The  manufacturers  that  have  established  this  new  industry  in  the 

United  States  since  1914  are  satisfied  with  the  existing  rate  of  duty 

of  45  per  cent  ad  valorem,  but  urge  that  the  provision  in  paragraph 

573,  which  admitted  about  half  of  the  total  chemical  ware  imported 

128893—19 3  17 


18  REPORT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

free  of  duty,  be  repealed  and  that  all  chemical  ware  be  made  dutiable 
at  45  per  cent  ad  valorem.  They  state  that  this  is  necessary  in  order 
to  encourage  and  build  up  their  new  industry;  that  large  quantities  of 
the  ware  used  in  educational  institutions  are  not  required  to  be  of  a 
high  grade,  and  therefore  the  cheaper  ware  will  be  imported  free  of 
duty  when  normal  trade  conditions  are  restored ;  and  that  while  they 
can  compete  under  the  existing  rate  of  45  per  cent,  they  can  not 
compete  with  duty  free  ware. 

STATUS  OF  THE  INDUSTRY. 

DESCRIPTION. 

Chemical  glassware  usually  designated  as  " hollow  glassware"  or 
ware  made  in  a  glass  factory  operating  a  furnace,  and  including  flasks 
beakers,  tubing,  reagent  bottles,  and  other  blown  articles  and  blanks 
for  volumetric  ware,  and  also  ware  made  from  tubing  before  the  blast 
lamp  and  groups  of  graduated  ware,  as  burettes  and  pipettes,  extrac- 
tion apparatus,  condensers,  and  other  articles,  when  imported  for 
manufacturing  and  commercial  purposes,  are  dutiable  at  45  per  cent 
ad  valorem  under  paragraph  84  of  the  tariff  act  of  1913.  When  these 
classes  of  chemical  glassware  are  "specially  imported  in  good  faith  for 
the  use  and  by  order  of  any  society  or  institution  incorporated  or 
established  solely  for  religious,  philosophical,  educational,  scientific, 
or  literary  purpose"  they  are  aumitted  free  of  duty. 

Many  of  our  most  important  industries  requiring  research  work — 
the  testing  of  processes  and  the  analyses  of  their  materials  and 
products — are  dependent  upon  chemical  and  scientific  glassware  for 
their  successful  continuance.  Laboratory  tests  and  analyses  by 
means  of  this  ware  are  essential  in  the  chemical  control  of  such 
varied  industries  as  iron  and  steel,  raw  and  refined  sugar,  packing- 
house products,  fertilizers,  rubber  manufacture,  Portland  cement, 
soap,  oil  refining,  waterworks,  textiles,  and  in  chemical  plants  in  the 
manufacture  of  explosives,  dyes,  soda,  and  other  products. 

DOMESTIC  PRODUCTION. 

Qiiintity. — Before  the  war,  practically  all  of  these  different  classes 
of  ware  were  made  in,  and  imported  from  Germany.  Begin- 
ning with  the  year  1915,  factory-made  blown  ware,  such  as  flasks, 
beakers,  tubing,  and  other  articles  have  been  made  in  about  10  large 
and  well-organized  glass  factories  in  the  United  States.  Flasks  and 
beakers  have  been  made  in  one  American  glass  factory  since  about 
the  year  1900,  but  in  very  inconsiderable  quantities.  Since  1915  the 
cutting  off  of  imports  has  induced  domestic  factories  to  enter  upon 
the  production  of  this  class  of  ware.  Lamp  blown  and  volumetric 
ware  is  being  made  in  a  Idrge  number  of  shops,  comparatively  small 
in  si/.e.  The  value  of  the  chemical  ware  produced  in  American 
factories  and  shops  has  been  as  follows:  1915,  $950,319;  1916, 
$1,661,121;  1917,  $2,233,704;  1918,  $2,865,774. 

Cfa-ssification  of  products. — In  an  address  on  "The  Manufacture  of 
Chemical  Apparatus  in  the  United  States"  delivered  before  the 
American  Chemical  Society  at  its  meeting  held  at  Urbana,  111., 
April  18-21,  1916,  Mr.  Arthur  IT.  Thomas,  an  importer,  exporter, 


CHEMICAL   GLASSWARE.  19 

and  dealer  in  laboratory  apparatus  of  both  foreign  and  domestic 
manufacture,  made  the  following  classification  of  chemical  glassware: 

HOLLOW    GLASSWARE. 

Articles — Flasks,  beakers,  and  other  factory-made  shapes,  including  blanks  for 
some  volumetric  ware.  Tariff,  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Sources  before  the  war. — With  the  exception  of  one  large  factory  in  the  United  States 
which  made,  in  addition  to  extensive  products  in  other  lines,  a  few  flasks,  and  beakers 
of  excellent  Duality  and  reasonable  price,  this  ware  was  purchased  exclusively  in 
Europe.  The  American  production  was  not.  in  any  commercial  sense,  a  factor  in  the 
situation. 

LAMP-BLOWN    AND    VOLUMETRIC   WARE. 

Articles. — All  shapes  made  of  tubing  before  the  blast  lamp,  including  the  graduation 
of  blanks  made  in  the  factory  in  addition  to  those  made  before  the  lamp.  Tariff,  45 
per  cent  ad  valorem. 

Sources  before  the  trar. — With  the  exception  of  a  few  items  not  of  significance  to  our 
discussion,  such  as  hydrometers  and  thermometers  for  clinical  and  industrial  use, 
homeopathic  vials  and  test  tubes,  milk  bottles,  and  syringes,  all  staple  stock  was 
purchased  in  Europe.  Repair  work  and  the  manufacture  of  a  great  variety  of  special 
items,  not  in  sufficient  demand  to  warrant  arrangement  for  importation  in  large 
quantities,  was  conducted  in  a  few  glass-blowing  shops  operated  by  some  of  the  larger 
dealers,  in  separate  small  shops  in  a  few  of  the  larger  cities,  and  in  the  south  Jersey 
district  as  an  important  side  line  in  connection  with  three  large  glass  factories. 

OPTICAL    MEASURING   INSTRUMENTS. 

Articles. — Spectroscopes  and  spectrometers,  polarimeters,  and  saccharimeters, 
refractometers,  colorimeters,  and  microscopes.  Tariff,  35  per  cent  ad  valorem, 
except  on  microscopes,  25  per  cent. 

Sources  before  the  war. — The  instruments  in  this  classification  as  used  in  chemical 
laboratories  were  all  purchased  in  Europe  with  the  exception  of  microscopes,  the 
manufacture  of  which  has.  as  you  all  know,  been  extensively  and  successfully  con- 
ducted in  America  for  many  years. 

Materials. — Sand,  borax,  and  boric  acid  are  the  chief  materials 
reported  by  one  of  the  principal  manufacturers.  Other  materials 
named  are  lime,  soda  ash,  arsenic,  and  all  are  of  domestic  origin. 
Potash  is  not  an  essential  ingredient. 

I'.quipinent. — The  ordinary  equipment  of  a  glass  factory  for  the 
blowing  of  bulbs  and  bottles  suffices  for  the  production  of  chemical 
hollow  blown  ware.  Molds,  blow  pipes,  and  furnaces  constitute  the 
principal  equipment,  and  are  the  same  in  all  countries. 

Methods  and  processes. — The  making  of  hollow  blown  chemical 
ware  is  similar  to  that  of  incandescent  lamp  bulbs  and  bottles. 
Lamp-blown  and  volumetric  ware  made  from  tubing,  and  often 
according  to  the  designs  of  laboratory  scientists,  and  from  the  factory 
blanks  is  the  work  of  specially  trained  artisans.  There  are  less  than 
250  workmen  of  this  class  in  the  United  States  (1916)  who  have  been 
for  the  most  part  brought  from  the  Thuringian  factories  of  Germany. 
Since  the  war  one  American  firm  has  developed  the  use  of  machinery 
to  do  in  part  what  was  laboriously  done  by  hand  in  Germany  in  the 
manufacture  of  the  great  variety  of  products  coming  under  the 
head  of  ''lamp-blown  and  volumetric  ware.'' 

Organization  and  capitalization. — There  are  no  factories  engaged 
exclusively  in  the  production  of  chemical  hollow  glassware,  and  in 
the  large,  well-organized  and  long-established  factories  where  it  is 
made,  it  is  not  a  major  product.  Its  manufacture  is  dependent 
upon  the  existing  organization  and  capitalization  of  the  factory. 

Geographical  distribution. — The  principal  hollow  ware  factories 
are  located  in  Xew  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  ^ew  Jersey.  The  lamp- 


20 


REPORT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 


blown  and  volumetric  shops,  a  few  of  them  connected  with  factories, 
are  in  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  and  New  Jersey. 

Domestic  production  and  consumption. — Since  1915  there  have  been 
no  imports  of  chemical  glassware,  and  the  domestic  production  at  this 
time  (February,  1919)  is  fully  equal  to  the  demands  of  domestic 
consumption.  The  exports  of  this  ware  though  small,  indicate  that 
the  existing  factories  are  meeting  our  requirements.  The  shortage 
of  the  highly  skilled  labor  required  for  the  making  of  lamp-blown  and 
volumetric  ware  makes  it  doubtful  if  American  shops  can  meet  the 
domestic  requirements  for  this  class  of  ware. 

The  following  table  shows  the  production  of  chemical  glassware 
in  the  United  States  for  the  period  1915-1918.  The  figures  are 
compiled  from  the  reports  of  manufacturers  to  the  Tariff  Commis- 
sion: 


Year. 

Factory- 
product 
value. 

Shop- 
product 
value. 

Total 
value. 

1915... 

$748,  440 

$201,  879 

$950,  319 

1916   

1,  279,  178 

3S1  943 

1  661  121 

1917  

1,  560,  046 

673,  658 

2,  233,  704 

1918  

1,  910,  109 

995,  665 

2,  865,  774 

Exports. — For  the  first  time  in  its  history  the  United  States  has 
become  an  exporter  of  domestic  chemical  glassware.  During  the 
calendar  year  of  1918,  chemical  glassware,  valued  at  $179,682,  was 
exported  to  17  specified  foreign  countries  and  to  others  not  specified. 
Canada,  Cuba,  Mexico,  and  China,  in  the  order  named,  were  the 
destinations  of  about  60  per  cent  of  the  total.  During  the  six 
months  ended  December  31,  1917,  the  value  of  exports  of  this  ware 
was  $65,336,  this  being  the  first  export  recorded.  It  is  believed  that 
a  shortage  of  the  ware  in  these  countries,  formerly  buyers  from 
Europe,  was  the  cause  of  the  exports,  and  that  the  bulk  of  this  trade 
will  not  be  permanent. 

Domestic  exports  of  chemical  glassware.1 


6-month  periods  ending — 


Exported  to— 
December, 
1917. 

June, 
1918. 

December, 
1918. 

Italy  $3,215 

$2,302 

$85 

Canada                                                                         22,144 

21,315 

21  ,  759 

Mexico          .        4.754 

6,  279 

7,224 

Cuba  10,  833 

15,187 

17,737 

Argentina                                                      2,052 

2,747 

3,516 

Brazil  2,  936 

2,874 

5,014 

Chile                                                                      1  465 

5,  139 

3,014 

Peru                                                                                                                           627 

1  341 

2  236 

Uruguay                                                                      220 

2  320 

Venezuela       .   .       .   .              524 

1,192 

3,036 

China  664 

8,216 

3,799 

Dutch  East  Indies                     .            2  272 

2,858 

6,091 

Australia                                                                               .                                    540 

5  890 

1,548 

Philippines                                                    '           1,215 

2,305 

970 

All  other  21,  865 

7,  636 

216,052 

Total  65,  330 

87,  G01 

92,081 

1  First  shown  in-July.  1917. 

2  Made  up  principally  as  follo\ys:  England.  $3,600;  British  South  Africa,  $3.206:  and  British  India,  $3,20(1. 


CHEMICAL  GLASSWARE.  21 

FOREIGN    PRODUCTION . 

There  are  no  available  statistics  of  foreign  production.  Jena,  Ger- 
many, occupies  first  place  in  the  production  and  export  of  this  ware- 
and  it  was  there  it  was  successfully  developed.  It  is  also  made  and 
exported  from  Austria,  Belgium,  and  France.  In  1911  Germany 
exported  to  all  countries  chemical  ware  valued  at  $1, 946, 126.  The 
exports  of  Austria  have  been  considerable,  but  are  not  ascertainable. 

IMPORTS. 

Before  the  war  the  total  domestic  consumption  of  the  United 
States  was  imported,  except  a  very  small  quantity  made  as  a  by- 
product in  a  IVew  Jersey  glass  factory. 

Statistics  of  the  imports  of  chemical  glassware  have  not  been 
reported  separately  for  many  years.  Estimates  of  the  value  of  the 
imported  ware  before  the  war  by  the  twro  principal  importing  houses, 
for  the  year  1913,  place  it  at  from  $1,200,000  to  $1,500,000;  of  these 
totals  the  value  of  the  wrare  imported  free  of  duty  for  educational 
institutions  the  same  year  was  from  $500,000  to  $800,000,  or  from 
42  per  cent  to  about  53  per  cent. 

TARIFF   HISTORY. 

Paragraph  573  of  the  act  of  1913  exempts  from  duty  chemical 
glassware  as  philosophical  or  scientific  apparatus,  utensils,  or  instru- 
ments for  educational  and  like  institutions.  This  exemption  dates 
back  to  the  act  of  1790.  Enlargements  of  the  classes  of  goods  or  insti- 
tutions were  made  in  the  acts  of  1816,  1824,  1841,  and  1842.  The  pro- 
vision was  omitted  from  the  act  of  1846  and  also  from  1864  to  1870, 
since  when  free  entry  has  been  uniformly  accorded. 

Three  rules  of  construction  have  competed,  each  at  times  success- 
fully, in  litigation.  First,  intrinsic  character  of  the  article;  second, 
chief  use  of  the  article;  and,  third,  intended  or  actual  use  of  the  par- 
ticular importation.  The  last  was  held  by  the  Court  of  Customs  Ap- 
peals to  be  the  proper  rule.  ( United  States  v.  Kastor,  6  Ct.  Cust. 
Appls.,  52.) 

TARIFF    CONSIDERATIONS. 

There  has  thus  far  been  no  competition.  Prior  to  1915  practically 
all  of  this  ware  was  manufactured  in  and  imported  from  Germany. 
In  1915  American  factories  began  to  produce  the  ware  as  a  new 
industry  and  there  have  been  since  no  importations. 

Under  paragraph  573  of  the  tariff  act  of  1913,  chemical  glassware 
imported  "for  the  use  and  by  order  of  any  college,  academy,  school, 
or  seminary  of  learning  in  the  United  States  or  any  State  or  public 
library  and  not  for  sale"  is  admitted  free  of  duty.  It  has  also  been 
admitted  free  of  duty  for  educational  and  scientific  purposes  under 
various  tariff  acts,  from  1790  to  1846,  from  1857  to  1864,  and  from 
1870  to  1913.  If  imported  for  purposes  other  than  those  stated 
above,  it  is  dutiable  under  paragraph  84  of  the  tariff  act  of  1913 
at  45  per  cent  ad  valorem. 

At  the  Pittsburgh  conference  of  the  Tariff  Commission  in  January, 
1918,  manufacturers  who  began  the  making  of  this  ware  when  our 
supply  was  cut  off  from  Germany,  and  who  are  now  supplying  the 


22 


REPORT  OF   THE   UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 


domestic  demand,  strongly  objected  to  the  importation  free  of  duty 
of  laboratory  ware  for  educational  institutions. 

They  pointed  out  that  although  the  high  grades  of  this  ware  now 
being  made  in  the  United  States  are  superior,  according  to  the  tests 
of  the  Bureau  of  Standards,  to  the  Jena  and  other  European  ware, 
and  will  be  given  preference  on  account  of  then-  merit,  yet  large 
quantities  of  the  ware  are  not  required  to  be  of  a  high  grade  and 
therefore  American  educational  institutions,  after  normal  trade 
conditions  are  restored,  will  import  the  cheaper  ware  duty  free,  and 
American  manufacturers  will  not  be  able  to  compete  with  duty-free 
ware.  They  ask  that  the  duty-free  proviso  on  chemical  ware  be 
stricken  out,  and  they  further  state  that  if  the  existing  tariff  rate 
of  45  per  cent  is  maintained  on  all  the  chemical  ware  that  comes  in, 
they  can  compete.  One  manufacturer  made  the  following  state- 
ment: "We  considered  that  question  very  carefully  before  we  pro- 
ceeded to  produce  laboratory  glassware,  and  concluded  to  venture, 
believing  that  our  Government  would  protect  us  after  the  war." 

Comparative  tests  of  foreign  and  domestic  ware. — Chemical  glassware 
of  good  quality  is  characterized  by  special  powers  of  withstanding 
heat  and  chemical  attack. 

Comparative  tests  of  chemical  glassware  were  made  in  1918  by  the 
experts  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Standards  of  brands  of 
American-made  ware  and  the  best-known  wares  of  European  manu- 
facture. The  following  is  from  the  official  report  of  the  Bureau  of 
Standards : 

The  cutting  off  of  our  imports  from  Germany  and  Austria  has  forced  us  to  rely  upon 
American  manufacturers  for  practically  our  entire  supply  of  glass  beakers  and  flasks. 
In  order  to  give  chemists  some  information  as  to  the  quality  of  this  ware,  the  Bureau 
of  Standards  has  examined  five  brands  of  American-made  ware  in  comparison  with 
the  two  best-known  wares  of  European  make. 

The  tests  included  chemical  analysis;  determination  of  coefficient  of  expansion; 
refractive  index;  condition  of  strain;  resistance  to  repeated  evaporation,  to  heat,  and 
to  mechanical  shock;  and  resistance  to  chemical  reagents. 

In  all  cases  of  beakers  and  flasks  approximating  in  size  the  400  cubic  centimeter 
Jena  beaker  and  flask  were  used.  All  the  ware  tested  bore  permanent  trade-marks. 
From  45  to  50  beakers  and  flasks  of  each  ware  were  secured  for  this  series  of  tests. 

General  summary  of  tests. 


Name  of  manu- 
facturer. 

Resistance  to  — 

Water. 

Mineral 
acids. 

Carbonated 
alkalies. 

Caustic 
alkalies. 

Ammonia 
and 
ammonium 
salts. 

Heat 
shock. 

Mechanical 
shock. 

Ka^alier  
M.  E.  G.  Co.i  
Pyrex  '  
Jena  

Nosol  '     ...     . 

Poor  
Good  
...do  
...do  
.do     ... 

Good  
...do  
...do  
...do  
..  do  

Poor  ,. 
Good  
...do  
...do  
...do... 

Good  
...do  
Fair  
...do  
...do  

Good... 
...do  
...do  
...do  
...do  

Poor  
...do  
Good  
...do  
...do  

Poor. 
Do. 
Good.2 
Fair. 
Do. 
Good. 
Do. 

Fry'  
Libbey  '  

...do  
...do  

...do  
...do  

...do  
...do  

...do  
...do  

...do  
...do  

Poor  
'Good  

1  American. 


2  Far  superior  to  any  of  the  other  wares. 


Tn  the  ratine:  of  resistance  to  caustic  alkalies  the  boiling  tests  only  have  been  con- 
sidered. These  results  indicate  that  all  the  American-made  wares  tested  are  superior 
to  Kavalier  and  equal  or  superior  to  Jena  ware  for  general  chemical  laboratory  use. 


CHEMICAL  GLASSWABE.  23 

VIEWS  OF  MANUFACTURERS,  SCIENTISTS,  IMPORTERS  AND 

OTHERS. 

TARIFF   COMMISSION  CONFERENCE  WITH  GLASS  MANUFACTURERS. 

At  the  conference  of  the  Tariff  Commission  with  glass  manufac- 
turers at  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  in  January,  1918,  the  following  statements 
relative  to  chemical  glassware  were  made  by  the  manufacturers 
named : 

J.  H.  Fry,  vice  president  of  the  H.  C.  Fry  Glass  Co.,  Rochester,  Pa. : 

Before  the  war,  the  chemical  ware  came  principally  from  Germany.  The  price  of 
that  ware  landed  in  this  country  was  so  low  that  there  was  no  inducement  to  the 
manufacturer  to  make  it.  In  fact,  we  never  figured  that  we  could  compete  in  that 
field  as  long  as  we  had  to  compete  against  the  foreign  ware. 

These  two  lines  have  increased  our  factory  production  about  $200,000  in  the  last 
year. 

The  technical  problem  in  the  chemical  glass  industry  is  to  secure  the  proper  mixture 
of  materials  and  the  required  skill  in  manufacture.  We  had  trouble  in  getting  skilled 
labor  with  technical  experience.  It  took  us  about  six  months  to  really  get  a  production 
that  was  satisfactory. 

A  large  quantity  of  chemical  ware  is  used  by  the  laboratories  and  colleges  of  the 
United  States.  If  that  ware  comes  in  duty  free,  as  under  the  conditions  existing 
prior  to  the  war,  we  can  not  compete.  It  is  necessary  to  have  tariff  protection  on  that 
ware  if  we  are  to  maintain  the  quality  that  we  are  now  manufacturing:  and  it  was 
necessary  to  get  a  good  quality  in  order  to  replace  the  foreign  ware  We  can  sell  a 
limited  amount  to  the  mills  and  factories,  but  as  a  rule,  I  do  not  think  we  would  be 
justified  in  manufacturing  either  the  quality  or  the  large  line  that  we  are  now  making. 
The  chief  quantity  consumed  is  used  in  the  scientific  and  educational  institutions. 
We  have  always  felt  that  the  colleges  should  pay  a  duty  the  same  as  anyone  else  on 
this  ware.  They  should  pay  a  duty,  just  the  same  as  they  have  to  pay  the  price  on 
iron  or  anything  else  to  build  their  buildings.  We  have  to  support  the  colleges,  and 
the  colleges  in  turn,  I  think,  should  support  the  manufacturers.  We  are  always 
making  donations  to  colleges,  and  it  does  not  seem  fair  to  have  them  buying  one  of 
their  principal  articles  from  the  other  side. 

The  German  manufacturers  had  the  materials,  they  had  the  skilled  labor  and 
they  had  the  jump  on  us  in  producing  this  ware.  We  are  getting  the  jump  on  them 
now  because  they  are  eliminated  entirely.  It  remains  to  be  seen  what  the  effect  of 
the  war  will  be  from  the  labor  standpoint,  and  as  to  whether  or  not  they  will  overtake 
us  in  manufacturing  after  the  war.  Of  course  we  do  not  know.  The  reason  that  they 
had  the  advantage  then  was  that  the  American  factories  could  not  compete.  We 
have  now  proven  that  we  can  make  a  high  quality  of  laboratory  ware  at  reasonable 
prices. 

To  a  certain  extent  there  was  a  special  prestige  for  German  chemical  ware  in  this 
country,  which  had  to  be  overcome.  Many  of  the  chemists  were  Germans.  This 
ware  did  not  all  come  from  Germany;  some  of  it  came  from  Austria.  I  know  of  only 
one  factory  in  the  United  States  that  made  any  headway  in  that  particular  line  prior 
to  the  war,  and  they  manufactured  principally  such  articles  as  are  used  by  the  drug 
trade.  That  was  the  Whitall-Tatum  Co.  Since  the  war  five  or  six  American  facto- 
ries are  making  chemical  glass,  and  it  keeps  the  price  down  to  a  competitive  basis. 
There  are  eight  or  ten  new  furnaces  operating  on  that  line  of  ware. 

The  production  in  Germany  was  quite  large.  In  the  limited  time  we  have  been 
in  this  business  pur  sales  will  run  over  $150,000  a  year. 

When  we  decided  to  go  into  this  line,  we  employed  the  best  chemists  we  could 
find.  The  idea  was  to  get  quality,  so  that  after  the  war  our  quality  would  lie  known 
and  we  would  have  a  chance  to  sell  it  on  a  quality  basis.  We  experimented  with  it, 
and  we  made  glass  which  from  all  chemical  standpoints  was  superior  to  the  original 
German  production.  The  ingredients  and  the  way  they  are  made  are  somewhat 
different.  It  is  a  superiority  that  we  hope  will  continue  indefinitely,  because  the 
demand  in  this  country  has  been  for  a  better  quality.  The  distinctive  requirement 
is  for  quality  glass  that  will  stand  the  laboratory  tests.  The  first  tost  applied  by  the 
Bureau  of  Standards  was  that  of  water,  the  second  that  of  mineral  acids,  the  third 
carbonate  alkalies,  the  fourth  caustic  alkalies,  fifth  ammonia  and  salts  of  ammonia, 
sixth  heat  shock,  and  finally  mechanical  shock.  The  chemical  glass  meeting  those 
tests  naturally  would  be  known  as  a  quality  line.  The  workmanship  does  not  count 
as  much  as  the  resistance  to  heat  and  chemicals,  to  withstand  sudden  changes  of  tem- 
perature and  the  attack  of  reagents. 


24  REPORT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

I  believe  that  if  the  present  tariff  duty  on  this  line  of  goods  is  maintained  and  col- 
lected from  all  impartially  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  increase  it.  We  can  manufac 
ture  the  goods  here  to  compete  successfully  against  glassware  that  will  be  imported 
after  the  war,  provided  that  duty  will  be  imposed  on  all  who  use  the  glass.  It  seems 
unfair  to  have  chemical  glass  come  in  duty  free  to  universities  and  educational  insti- 
tutions, for  if  they  buy  imported  instead  of  American  glassware  our  production  is 
correspondingly  decreased,  and  the  cost  of  production  is  thereby  made  higher.  That 
is,  a  large  production  is  necessary  to  keep  costs  down.  If  we  have  to  limit  ourselves 
to  a  smaller  field  of  distribution,  we  shall  have  to  get  a  higher  price.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  tariff  is  maintained  on  all  glassware  that  comes  in,  regardless  of  the  pur- 
chaser, I  might  say  that  so  far  as  our  plant  is  concerned  we  can  compete.  We  con- 
sidered that  question  very  carefully  before  we  proceeded  to  produce  laboratory  glass- 
ware and  concluded  to  venture,  believing  that  our  Government  would  protect  us  after 
the  war.  That  is  the  reason  we  set  out  to  produce  a  high-quality  line  of  ware  and  spent 
about  $10,000  in  its  development. 

I  do  not  believe  that  the  rate  of  45  per  cent  ad  valorem  could  be  reduced  without 
harm.  It  was  only  through  getting  the  experience  we  have  had  which  enables  us  to 
manufacture  the  ware  now  in  quantities,  that  we  felt  warranted  in  going  ahead  and 
spending  money  for  equipment  and  getting  ready  to  stay  in  the  business  after  the  war. 
By  that  I  mean  we  felt  that  the  45  per  cent  duty  ad  valorem  would  protect  us  and 
let  us  compete  in  that  line  after  the  war  if  conditions  were  about  the  same  as  they 
were  previous  to  the  war.  It  requires  special  equipment  largely.  We  had  to  invest 
capital  for  this  equipment. 

After  the  war  some  of  the  machinery  could  be  reconstructed  so  as  to  be  used  in 
other  lines,  but  most  of  it  would  be  lost.  All  of  the  molds  would  be  an  absolute  loss. 
That  would  be  true  because  of  the  nature  of  the  product.  It  is  very  hard  and  requires 
a  different  method  of  finishing  than  ordinary  glass. 

I  imagine  we  spent  $10,000  before  we  were  able  to  produce  any  glass.  For  instance, 
a  man  will  melt  a  pot  of  glass  and  then  throw  it  away,  or  something  like  that,  and  I 
would  simplv  estimate  that  it  cost  us  about  $10,000  to  get  it  on  the  market.  The 
Government  is  a  very  large  user  just  now  in  our  line. 

Howard  S.  Evans,  vice  president  of  the  Macbeth-Evans  Glass  Co., 
Pittsburgh,  Pa.: 

T  would  like  to  take  up  the  question  of  the  laboratory  glassware.  There  was  scarcely 
any  of  this  line  manufactured  in  this  country  before  the  war,  but  since  the  outbreak 
of  the  war  our  manufacturers  have  begun  to  produce  all  kinds  of  glassware  for  labora- 
tory use.  Some  of  the  manufacturers  are  producing  a  quality  which  is  equal  to.  and 
in  some  respects  excels,  the  foreign  product.  We  have  entered  into  the  manufacture 
of  it  very  largely. 

It  has  seemed  to  me  to  be  rather  unfair  to  the  manufacturer  in  this  country  to 
permit  the  importation  of  this  line  of  goods  duty  free.  In  fact,  that  has  been  the 
reason  why  most  of  the  manufacturers  did  not  enter  this  particular  field.  There  is 
one  concern.  Whitall-Tatum  &  Co.,  that  made  these  goods  in  a  small  way. 

I  wish  to  say  that  I  thought  it  was  not  quite  right  to  the  American  manufacturers 
to  allow  the  free  importation  of  laboratory  glassware  and  apparatus  for  use  in  colleges 
and  universities.  They  are  very  large  users  of  the  product,  and  if  their  business 
was  not  obtainable  there  would  be  not  enough  left  to  justify  the  manufacturers  in 
making  the  molds  and  putting  in  the  equipment  for  the  remaining  business:  that  is, 
for  glass  that  would  be  used  industrially.  That  is  true,  even  though  we  could  com- 
pete with  the  German  product.  The  demand  for  this  ware,  aside  from  that  going  to 
colleges  and  universities,  would  be  so  little  that  there  would  be  no  inducement  for 
the  American  manufacturer  to  go  to  the  expense  of  equipping  himself  and  making 
molds  for  that  line.  It  has  also  seemed  to  me  that  the  jobber  or  dealer  was  entitled 
to  the  trade  of  the  consumer:  that  is,  the  trade  of  the  colleges  and  universities. 

J.  E.  Capen,  sales  manager  of  Macbeth-Evans  Glass  Co.: 

FREE    CHEMICAL   GLASSWARE. 

With  reference  to  the  duty-free  chemical  glassware  T  think  I  could,  perhaps,  give 
you  a  little  different  angle.  I  have  talked  with  a  good  many  of  the  users  of  this 
glass— perhaps  I  may  call  them  professors— in  these  schools,  and  they  seem  to  think 
that  a  mistake  has  been  made  in  allowing  this  material  to  come  in  free.  There  are 
two  reasons  for  it.  In  the  first  place  the  schools  and  institutions  are  kept  up  at  the 
expense  of  our  own  people  in  the  form  of  cash  donations,  endowments,  etc.  Cer- 
tainly, in  order  to  obtain  this  material  they  must  place  very  large  orders,  perhaps 
once  a  year,  and  they  have  to  wait  weeks  and  sometimes  several  months  to  get  it. 


CHEMICAL,  GLASSWAKE.  25 

They  may  buy  more  than  they  need,  or  they  may  not  buy  enough.  They  may  run 
out  of  certain  sizes  of  articles,  and  they  are  almost  compelled  to  keep  out  of  them  or 
pay  a  good  deal  higher  price  to  get  them.  Those  to  whom  I  have  talked,  almost  all 
of  them,  seem  to  think  it  would  be  better  if  the  duty  was  the  same  as  applied  to  ware 
for  commercial  uses. 

OPINIONS   OF   SCIENTISTS. 

Questions  addressed  to  the  directors  of  the  chemical  departments 
of  universities  and  other  institutions  relating  to  the  effect  of  the  with- 
drawal of  the  duty-free  privilege  in  the  importation  of  chemical  glass- 
ware and  apparatus  and  the  increased  cost  to  the  student  elicited 
replies  from  some  of  the  most  important  institutions.  The  results 
are  embodied  in  the  following  summaries  and  they  are  followed  by 
interesting  views  of  the  individual  scientists  named. 

Question. — Would  the  withdrawal  of  the  duty-free  privilege  hereto- 
fore enjoyed  by  educational  institutions  and  the  continuance  of  the 
present  rates  of  duty  on  apparatus  and  chemicals  increase  the  devel- 
opment and  manufacture  of  such  merchandise  in  the  United  States  ? 

The  heads  of  the  chemical  departments  of  20  universities  and  scien- 
tific institutions  replied  to  this  question.  The  institutions  included 
Yale,  Cornell,  Pennsylvania,  Leland  Stanford,  Illinois,  Pittsburgh, 
Chicago,  Washington  and  Lee,  Ann  Arbor,  Washington,  the  Carnegie 
Institute,  Rockefeller  Institution,  Bureau  of  Chemistry,  Bureau  of 
Standards,  Washington  Hygiene  Laboratory,  Geophysical  Labora- 
tory, and  Pratt  Institute. 

Of  these,  17  stated  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  duty-free  privilege 
would  increase  the  development  and  manufacture  of  chemical  articles, 
one  said  it  would  have  little  effect,  one  answered  in  the  negative,  and 
one  was  noncommittal. 

Of  8  of  the  principal  importers  and  dealers  who  replied  to  the 
question.  6  answered  yes,  1  answered  no,  and  1  was  noncommittal. 

Question. — Would  such  increase  benefit  the  whole  chemical  industry 
in  the  United  States  sufficiently  to  justify  the  loss  possibly  involved 
thereby  to  educational  institutions. 

Replying  to  this  question,  eight  scientists  stated  that  the  benefit 
would  justify  the  possible  loss,  while  all  of  the  other  university  men 
either  thought  it  would  not  do  so  or  were  doubtful.  The  importers 
and  dealers,  some  of  whom  are  manufacturers  of  lamp-blown  and 
volumetric  ware,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  industry  would  be 
sufficiently  benefited  to  justify  the  possible  loss  involved. 

Question. — What  do  you  estimate  the  increased  cost  per  student 
per  year  under  normal  conditions  which  might  result  from  such 
withdrawal  ? 

The  replies  of  the  university  men  to  this  question  varied.  The 
estimates  of  increased  cost  per  year  per  student  were  as  follows: 
$3  to  $5;  $5  to  $8;  $5  to  $10;  $10  to  $20;  less  than  $25; 
about  25  per  cent;  probably  50  per  cent.  A  number  of  educational 
institutions  charge  only  the  actual  cost.  This  additional  information 
was  given:  "Some  schools  charge  net  prices,  but  the  maiority  add 
from  100  to  200  per  cent  to  the  cost,  which  was  not  intended  by  the 
Government  when  the  law  was  passed.  In  other  words,  a  great  many 
schools  compel  students  to  pay  the  entire  operating  expenses  of  the 
laboratory  supply  department  by  adding  a  profit  to  the  duty-free 
prices.  One  large  western  university  pays  interest  on  the  equipment 


26  REPORT  OF  THE  TJXITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

of  the  storeroom  and  the  running  expenses  of  same,  including  the 
salary  of  the  purchasing  agent,  and  in  addition  shows  a  profit.  We 
do  not  know  of  any  that  charge  the  actual  cost  price.  The  spirit  and 
literal  interpretation  of  the  duty-free  law  has  been  broken  by  a  great 
many  schools  in  checking  up  the  apparatus  used  by  instructors  and 
students  and  allowing  the  same  to  be  carried  away  from  the  insti- 
tution. Some  of  the  duty-free  goods  have  been  disposed  of  by 
laboratories. 

INDIVIDUAL   OPINIONS    OF    UNIVERSITIY   DIRECTORS  OF  CHEMICAL  DEPARTMENTS. 

Bertram  B.  Boltwood,  in  charge  of  Sloane  Laboratory,  Yale  Uni- 
versity: Our  opinions  regarding  the  several  questions  are  as  follows: 
In  our  opinion  a  definite  distinction  should  be  made  between  "  appara- 
tus" and  "  chemicals."  Chemical  apparatus  as  such  may  be  divided 
into  two  classes  (1)  apparatus  proper,  including  lamp  stands,  burners, 
drying  ovens,  water  baths,  stills,  and  similar  appliances  used  in 
chemical  experiments,  and  (2)  utensils,  including  laboratory  glass- 
ware, porcelain  and  earthenware  (beakers,  jars,  funnels,  flasks,  etc.). 
The  manufacture  of  chemical  apparatus  (1)  can  scarcely  be  con- 
sidered as  properly  a  part  of  chemical  industry.  The  production 
of  these  articles,  as  you  know,  is  mostly  in  the  hands  of  concerns  like 
Eimer  &  Amend,  the  Scientific  Materials  Co.,  the  Taylor  Instrument 
Co.,  etc.,  who  have  in  general  supplied  American-made  rather  than 
imported  articles,  owing  to  the  fact  that  for  our  general  uses  the  home- 
made articles  have  usually  been  preferred.  This  class  of  manu- 
facturers have  to  all  appearances  prospered  sufficiently  under  existing 
conditions  and  would  scarcely  seem  to  need  any  further  assistance. 
With  respect  to  class  2  (utensils),  the  production  of  glass  beakers, 
flasks,  etc.,  in  this  country  has  been  confined  almost  wholly  to  con- 
cerns engaged  in  general  glass-making  who  have  been  able  to  produce 
superior  articles  like  Pyrex,  Nonsol,  etc.,  glasses  which  are  being^ 
used  more  and  more  because  of  their  superior  qualities.  It  would 
hardly  seem  necessary  to  further  benefit  these  concerns  by  removing 
duty-free  importation  as  they  are  already  sufficiently  prosperous 
with  every  assurance  of  a  continuation  of  their  trade  even  in  the 
face  of  foreign  competition.  The  situation  in  regard  to  porcelain  is 
somewhat  different,  as  apparently  efforts  to  produce  a  superior 
grade  of  chemical  porcelain  in  this  country  have  not  been  successful. 
The  withdrawal  of  the  duty-free  privilege  of  importing  porcelain 
might  stimulate  the  manufacture  of  a  superior  grade  of  porcelain  in 
this  country,  but  the  manufacture  of  both  porcelain  and  glass  would 
hardly,  as  we  understand  it,  be  considered  as  constituting  a  branch 
of  the  chemical  industry. 

It  would  seem  that  the  actual  consumption  of  chemicals  in  educa- 
tional institutions  was  not  sufficiently  great  to  be  an  important  factor 
in  the  industrial  manufacture  of  these  chemicals.  With  the  continued 
improvement  in  the  quality  of  inorganic  chemicals  manufactured  in 
this  country  there  has  been  an  increasing  tendency  on  the  part  of  the 
Yale  laboratories  to  buy  American  chemicals  and  not  to  import  them 
duty-free  from  Germany.  In  the  case  of  organic  chemicals,  owing  to 
a  very  limited  supply  in  this  country  the  tendency  has  been  to 
import  from  Germany,  since  this  was  the  only  source  of  supply 
available.  Replying  then  to  your  questions:  1.  The  withdrawal  of 


CHEMICAL  GLASSWARE.  27 

the  duty-free  privilege  would  in  all  probability  tend  to  increase  the 
development  and  manufacture  of  such  merchandise  in  the  United 
States.  It  would  also  increase  the  price  to  the  consumer. 

2.  Such  an  increase  would  not  appear  to  benefit  the  whole  chemical 
industry  in  the  United  States  sufficiently  to  justify  the  loss  inflicted 
thereby  on  the  educational  institutions,  with  a  possible  exception  in 
the  case  of  organic  chemicals. 

3.  The  estimated  increase  in  cost  per  student  per  year  under  normal 
conditions  would  probably  be  of  the  order  of  the  rate  of  duty  charged 
on  the  various  supplies,  since  the  increased  cost  to  the  institution  due 
to  import  duty  would  ultimately  fall  upon  the  student. 

4.  The  effect  of  the  change  on  the  scope  and  quality  of  chemical 
research  in  the  United  States  would  probably  be  greater  than  on  the 
routine  teaching  of  chemistry  since  it  is  particularly  in  connection 
with  research  work  that  importations  have  to  be  made,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  in  the  past,  at  least,  it  has  been  very  difficult  to  obtain 
many  new  forms  of  apparatus  and  many  of  the  more  unusual  chemicals 
in  this  country.     The  effect  of  the  change  on  chemical  research  would 
seem  to  be  distinctly  undesirable. 

5.  The  practice  prevailing  before  the  war  of  ordering  large  quanti- 
ties of  chemical  apparatus  and  reagents  in  advance  of  immediate 
requirements  has  in  our  opinion  resulted  in  a  great  saving  rather  than 
in  extravagance.     Owing  to  the  fact  that  an  excess  of  equipment  over 
immediate  needs  had  accumulated  in  a  number  of  laboratories,  these 
laboratories  have  been  in  an  especially  favorable  position  since  the 
supply  of  material  from  the  earlier  sources  has  entirely  ceased.     It 
seems  to  us  that  this  accumulation  of  a  surplus  stock  has  been  in  the 
nature  of  a  most  excellent  investment,  and,  as  most  chemical  appa- 
ratus and  reagents  are  not  subject  to  deterioration  with   age,  the 
supplies  accumulated  in  this  way  have  constituted  a  genuine  asset. 

6.  The    interruption    in    duty-free    importations    from    Germany 
coupled  with  the  scarcity  and  high  cost  of  domestic  made  apparatus 
has  somewhat  restricted  the  scope  of  educational  and  research  work 
in  our  laboratories  here.     The  funds  which  may  be  expended  by  our 
laboratories  are  necessarily  limited  and  the  increased  cost  of  material 
has  necessitated  a  decrease  in  the  quantities  purchased.     In  certain 
cases  where  more  expensive  apparatus  might  otherwise  have  been 
used,  it  has  been  necessary  to  employ  cheaper  and  inferior  substitutes. 
In  some  cases,  work,  which  might  have  been  carried  out  under  other 
circumstances,  has  been  abandoned.     This  necessity  for  saving  money 
has  naturally  resulted  in  greater  economy  in  the  running  of  the 
laboratory. 

7.  The  general  practice  has  been  somewhat  different  in  the  two  Yale 
laboratories.     In  both  laboratories,  however,  the  charge  to  the  student 
for  apparatus  broken  in  use  has  been  based  upon   the  replacement 
value  of  the  article  in  question.     This  replacement  value  has  been 
determined  by  the  price  paid  for  the  article  by  the  laboratory  on  the 
basis  of  duty-free  cost.     In  the  college  there  has  been  annually  a 
surplus  balance  of  laboratory  fees  plus  breakage  charges  over  operat- 
ing expenses  of  the  laboratory.     This  balance  has  been  placed  to  the 
credit  of  the  college   chemical  laboratory  and  constitutes   a  fund 
amounting,  at  the  present  time,  to  about  §16,000.     In  the  Sheffield 
Scientific  School  any  surplus  balance  of  this  sort  has  been  expended 
for  general  expenses  of  the  institution  and  has  not  been  credited  to 


28  REPORT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

the  chemical  department.  The  accounts  in  the  Sheffield  chemical 
laboratory  have  not  been  kept  in  such  a  form  as  to  make  it  possible 
to  determine  what  the  surplus  has  amounted  to.  The  total  surplus 
of  both  departments  has  certainly  been  very  considerably  less  than 
the  total  laboratory  fees  (exclusive  of  breakage  charges). 

8.  In  our  opinion  the  quality  of  glass  manufactured  in  the  United 
States   (including  Pyrex  and  Nonsol)  is  distinctly  superior  to  any 
glassware  previously  imported.     It  is  extremely  unlikely  if  market 
conditions  were  restored  to  prewar  conditions  that  any  general  use 
of  imported  glassware  would  result.     As  far  as  our  experience  goes, 
the  case  of  porcelain  is  somewhat  different,  as  the  chemical  porcelain 
ware  made  in  this  country  is  distinctly  inferior  to  that  previously 
imported. 

9.  The  value  of  chemicals  used  by  the  chemical  laboratories  must 
be  but  a  very  small  part  of  the  value  of  the  chemicals  produced  for 
and  consumed  by  other  agencies.     It  does  not  seem  at  all  probable 
that  the  enforced  purchase  of  chemical  supplies  in  this  country  would 
greatly  benefit  the  producers  and  manufacturers  in  general. 

10.  The  manufacture  of  chemical  apparatus  and  chemicals  appears 
to  have  been  quite  profitable  to  those  who  have  engaged  in  it  in  this 
country,  even  under  the  prewar  conditions.      That  the  chemical 
industries  as  a  whole  can  be  benefited  by  increasing  the  profits  of  a 
small  group  of  manufacturers  and  at  the  same  time  placing  any 
restrictions  or  obstacles  whatever  in  the  path  of  chemical  education 
and  research  seems  altogether  contrary  to  sound  reasoning. 

11.  Chemical  teaching  and  research  are  without  doubt  the  only 
practical  foundation  upon  which  a  successful  chemical  industry  can 
be  erected.     Any  encouragement  and  advancement  of  teaching  and 
research  will  certainly  be  to  the  ultimate  advantage  of  this  industry. 
The  present  system  of  duty-free  importation  for  the  chemical  labora- 
tories of  educational  and  research  institutions  would  seem  in  effect 
to  constitute  at  most  a  very  modest  tax  on  certain  branches  of 
chemical  industry,  while  at  the  same  time  this  tax  is  applied  to 
promoting  in  a  most  effective  way  the  best  interests  of  the  chemical 
industry  as  a  whole.     It  appears,  therefore,  to  be  eminently  fair  and 
just  in  its  workings.     I  can  not  but  feel  that  the  imposing  of  duty  on 
importations  of  chemicals  and  apparatus,  now  admitted  duty  free, 
with  a  special  view  to  the  exclusion  (after  the  war)  of  German  prod- 
ucts, would  be  altogether  ineffective.      I  believe  that  the  German 
manufacturers  would  still  be  able  to  undersell  the  American  producers 
of  certain  products  in  our  own  markets.     A  definite  understanding  and 
agreement  not  to  buy  German  supplies  under  any  circumstances, 
when  American  articles  are  obtainable,  if  adhered  to  conscientiously, 
would  be  vastly  more  effective,  and  much  more  in  accord  with  our 
patriotic  sentiments.     I,  for  one,  have  definitely  decided  to  follow 
such  a  policy  and  I  know  of  a  considerable  number  of  other  American 
chemists  who  are  resolved  to  do  likewise. 

./.  Stieglitz,  in  charge  of  laboratory,  University  of  Chicago:  In  my 
opinion  the  wise  course  to  follow  would  lie  between  the  situation  as 
it  was  before  the  war,  namely,  that  educational  institutions  were 
relieved  of  the  payment  of  duty  for  the  importation  of  scientific 
apparatus  and  chemicals,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  this  privilege 
be  simply  abolished.  I  believe  that  it  will  be  wisest  if  the  American 
Chemical  Society  should  recommend  to  the  United  States  Tariff 


CHEMICAL  GLASSWABE.  29 

Commission  that  this  privilege  be  abolished,  but  that  at  the  same  time 
the  duties  be  carefully  studied  and  revised  when  necessary  and  based 
essentially  on  differences  in  wages  as  compared  with  European  con- 
ditions in  such  a  way  that  we  should  have  not  complete  protection 
for  the  American  manufacturer,  but  protection  based  on  healthy, 
brainy,  and  foresighted  competition  with  European  products.  Any 
protection  that  would  make  possible  poorer  work  by  American  manu- 
facturers and  give  them  a  monopoly  on  such  a  basis  would  be  posi- 
tively detrimental  to  the  scientific  institutions  as  well  as  to  the 
industries  of  the  country.  In  a  word,  the  manufacturers  of  apparatus, 
etc.,  in  this  country  should  be  put  on  their  mettle  with  just  enough 
protection  to  make  possible  competition  on  the  basis  of  equal  costs 
and  quality.  This  would  be  possible  in  many  cases  only  as  the 
result  of  the  employment  of  research  chemists  and  physicists,  a 
result  which  is  most  highly  desirable  in  all  branches  of  industry  in  the 
United  States  if  we  are  to  have  any  permanent  improvement.  The 
reduction  in  tariffs  under  the  Democratic  administration,  in  my 
opinion,  has  had  such  an  effect  to  a  very  considerable  extent,  and  even 
if  the  war  had  not  intervened  and  we  would  have  had  some  years  of 
business  depression  the  ultimate  result  would  have  been,  I  believe, 
a  decided  improvement  through  research  and  invention  in  the  methods 
and  products  of  American  industry.  This  applies  in  the  same  way  to 
manufacturers  of  apparatus  as  to  manufacturers  of  other  products. 
I  would  further  suggest  that  the  Tariff  Commission  be  advised  to 
make  a  recommendation  removing  the  privilege  of  free  importation 
at  first  for  a  definite  period  of  years  only — 5  years  or,  if  necessary 
and  on  further  approval  by  the  commission,  10  years.  The  idea  of 
this  is  that  the  American  manufacturers  would  then  feel  that  they 
would  have  to  make  positive  progress  in  the  course  of  time  in  order 
to  hold  their  market.  A  similar  provision,  I  believe,  is  in  the  recom- 
mendations concerning  dyes  and  other  products. 

IF.  A.  N<*yes,  in  charge  laboratory,  University  of  Illinois:  While 
there  are  reasons  which  I  well  understand  for  some  restriction  in 
trade  between  nations  which  greatly  differ  in  industrial  conditions 
and  in  the  character  of  their  people,  reasons  of  this  sort  are  likely  to 
decrease  rather  than  increase  in  the  future,  I  can  see  no  logical  reason 
why  we  should  buy  a  certain  line  of  goods  from  an  American  when 
the  same  line  of  goods  can  be  better  or  more  cheaply  made  in 
England.  I  do  not  expect  to  see  ideals  of  greater  freedom  of  trade 
between  the  countries  of  the  world  realized  at  once,  but  I  think  that 
scientific  men  ought  to  do  what  they  can  to  foster  such  an  ideal. 

L.  M.  Dennis,  in  charge  department  of  chemistry,  Cornell  Uni- 
versity: Inasmuch  as  the  greater  part  of  chemical  apparatus  and 
chemicals  now  purchased  by  our  universities  for  their  departments 
of  chemistry  is  used  for  instruction  in  elementary  courses,,  the  in- 
creased cost  of  the  supplies  would  fall  chiefly  upon  the  students  tak- 
ing these  courses,  since  it  is  customary  for  the  laboratory  to  require 
the  student  to  pay  for  the  apparatus  and  chemicals  that  he  uses  in 
his  work. 

If  conditions  after  the  war  should  be  such  as  to  render  it  impos- 
sible to  import  apparatus  from  Germany,  chemical  research  in  the 
United  States  would  suffer  through  being  deprived  of  such  aids  to 
investigation  as  arc  not  now  manufactured  in  this  country  and  prob- 
ably would  not  be  manufactured  here  for  some  years  to  come.  If, 


30  REPORT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

however,  such  special  apparatus  could  be  imported  from  Germany 
under  high  duty,  chemical  research  in  the  United  States  would  prob- 
ably suffer  but  slightly  because  the  total  cost  of  such  special  apparatus 
would  doubtless  not  be  great. 

A  university  that  imported  chemical  apparatus  and  chemicals  from 
Germany  before  the  war  did  so  under  oath  that  these  supplies  were 
for  educational  purposes  and  were  not  intended  for  sale.  Such  being 
the  case,  it  has  been  thought  by  the  department  of  chemistry  of  Cor- 
nell University  that  a  charge  to  the  student  for  such  imported  sup- 
plies that  was  in  excess  of  the  actual  cost  of  these  materials  to  the 
university  would  constitute  a  violation  of  our  agreement  with  the 
Government  under  which  such  duty-free  importation  was  permitted. 
The  student's  were  consequently  charged  the  cost  price  for  all  im- 
ported chemical  apparatus  and  chemicals. 

The  chemical  glassware  now  made  by  the  leading  manufacturers 
in  the  United  States  appears  to  compare  very  favorably  with  the 
better  qualities  of  laboratory  glassware  that  were  formerly  made 
abroad.  This  fine  quality  of  glassware  is,  however,  not  needed  in 
the  elementary  courses  in  chemistrv  in  which  the  greater  part  of 
the  purchased  glassware  is  used.  If,  therefore,  we  are  to  furnish 
our  students  with  American-made  glassware  after  the  war,  it  is 
highly  desirable  that  our  manufacturers  produce  a  cheaper  grade  of 
ware  than  they  are  now  making,  since  otherwise  our  students  would 
be  required  to  use  an  expensive  line  of  glassware  of  much  finer 
quality  than  is  really  needed  in  much  of  their  work.  I  do  not  advo- 
cate the  use  of  cheap  lime-soda  glassware,  even  for  elementary  work 
in  chemistry,  but,  if  our  American  glass  companies  would  manu- 
facture beakers  and  flasks  of  a  glass  approximating  in  quality  the 
"R"  glass  of  Greiner  and  Friedricns,  the  cost,  to  our  students,  of 
glassware  of  satisfactory  grade  would  be  materially  reduced  and  the 
development  of  the  manufacture  of  such  apparatus  in  the  United 
States  would  thereby  be  substantially  encouraged.  The  material 
reduction  in  price  that  would  follow  the  replacement  of  expensive 
resistance  glass  by  a  grade  like  the  "R"  quality  is  apparent  from  a 
comparison  of  the  prices  of  a  small  beaker  of  "R"  glass,  of  Jena 
glass,  and  of  one  of  the  best-known  grades  of  American  glass.  These 
prices  stand  in  the  proportion  of  11  to  25  to  54. 

The  largest  purchasers  of  chemical  glassware  in  this  country  are 
the  university  laboratories  of  chemistry.  If  we  wish  to  give  the 
greatest  encouragement  possible  to  the  manufacture  of  chemical 
glassware  in  this  country,  it  would  be  necessary  to  shut  off  foreign 
supplies,  except  at  prohibitive  rates,  from  all  American  purchasers. 
But  in  this  connection  it  should  constantly  be  borne  in  mind  that 
whereas  a  chemical  industry  can  easily  meet  an  increased  cost  of  its 
laboratory  equipment  through  the  profits  accruing  from  its  manu- 
facturing, a  university  is  not  a  money-making  institution,  and  usually 
contributes  in  money  much  more  to  the  education  of  its  students 
than  the  students  themselves  pay.  If  the  increased  cost  of  supplies 
should  fall  ur>on  the  university,  it  would  constitute  a  tax  unon  a 
benefaction;  if  it  should  fall  upon  the  student,  it  would  constitute 
a  tax  unon  higher  education.  Nothing,  I  think,  would  be  more 
deplorable  or  have  a  more  injurious  effect  on  the  growth  and  develop- 
ment of  American  chemical  industries  than  a  decided  increase  in 
the  cost  to  the  student  of  his  professional  training,  for  this  would 


CHEMICAL  GLASSWARE.  31 

undoubtedly  exclude  many  of  our  ablest  young  men  from  the  pro- 
fession of  chemistry. 

R.  E.  Swain  in  charge  laboratory,  Leland  Stanford  University: 
Nothing  is  of  such  importance  to  the  chemical  institutions  of  this 
country,  whether  educational,  research,  or  industrial,  at  the  present 
time  as  is  complete  independence  of  foreign  sources  of  supply  of 
chemical  apparatus  and  pure  chemicals.  It  is  not  too  great  a  cost 
to  pay,  if  in  the  establishing  of  such  industries  by  protecting  them 
from  disastrous  foreign  competition,  it  becomes  necessary  to  with- 
draw duty-free  privileges  extended  to  educational  institutions. 

We  have  heretofor  depended  on  foreign  importation  only  for  such 
apparatus  and  pure  chemicals  as  we  could  purchase  abroad  at  a  clear 
profit.  The  list  changed  from  year  to  year  as  domestic  sources 
improved  or  became  less  advantageous  in  certain  lines.  On  a  full- 
time  laboratory  course  the  added  cost  would  probably  reach  or 
exceed  $10  per  year.  It  is  far  more  important  to  have  domestic 
glass,  porcelain,  and  instruments  of  precision  than  to  enjoy  relief 
from  the  financial  cost  of  import  duty. 

Simon  Flexner,  Rockefeller  Institute  for  Medical  Research :  Looked 
at  in  a  large  way,  the  requirements  of  educational  institutions  are 
not  great  enough  to  warrant  chemical  industry  to  make  strenuous 
efforts  to  supply  them  aside  from  other  larger  demands  for  the  same 
products. 

While  the  quality  of  American  glass  is  as  good  as  the  Jena  glass, 
the  apparatus  made  from  it  is  inferior,  because  of  the  lack  in  the 
United  States  of  skilled  apparatus  makers,  glass  blowers,  etc.  After 
the  war,  possibly  as  never  before,  it  will  be  desirable  and  important 
to  stimulate  discovery  in  chemistry.  The  colleges,  universities,  and 
research  institutions  are  the  sources  of  the  progress.  Unless  they 
can  train  large  numbers  of  students  and  investigators  and  make  dis- 
coveries of  their  own,  the  industry  will  suffer  great  impairment.  In 
their  own  commercial  interests,  therefore,  the  manufacturers  should 
favor  the  educational  institutions  regarding  costs,  etc.,  and  not  make 
it  too  difficult  for  them  to  draw  the  best  apparatus  in  point  of  quality, 
precision,  etc.,  from  anywhere  in  the  world. 

It  would  seem  to  be  the  part  of  wisdom  on  the  part  of  the  American 
Chemical  Society  to  protect  the  interests  of  chemical  teaching  and 
research,  as  well  as  to  promote  the  interests  of  chemical  industry. 

Alexander  Silverman,  School  of  Chemistry,  University  of  Pitts- 
burgh: We  experience  difficulty  in  securing  special  apparatus.  For 
example,  we  can  not  obtain  Plucker  tubes  containing  the  rare  gases 
of  the  zero  group,  have  waited  several  years  for  a  Hilger  spectrograph, 
can  not  get  delivery  on  a  Morse  type  optical  pyrometer  ordered  over 
a  year  ago,  etc.  It  should  be  understood  that  the  American  manu- 
facturer must  include  forms  of  apparatus  for  which  there  is  a  limited 
demand,  unless  he  wishes  the  Government  to  place  such  items  on  the 
duty-free  list.  The  failure  to  manufacture  optical  glass  for  special 
purposes  is  probably  accounted  for  by  tlfte  policy  of  said  manufac- 
turer to  make  only  that  which  means  "large  production  and  good 
profits."  I  hesitate  to  advocate  the  assessment  of  a  duty  on  special 
apparatus  which  can  be  bought  at  reasonable  prices  abroad. 


32  REPORT   OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

James  Lewis  Howe,  Washington  and  Lee  University,  Lexington, 
Va. :  Am  delighted  with  the  Pyrex  glass  and  am  inclined  to  buy  it  for 
general  use  in  preference  to  anything  else.  Have  not  seen  any  satis- 
factory American  laboratory  porcelain  and  am  using  Japanese  to 
replace  our  German  supply  as  it  becomes  exhausted.  I  do  not  think 
the  privilege  of  duty-free  importation  should  be  withdrawn. 

Ellwood  Hendrick,  New  York:  What  impresses  me  in  this  connec- 
tion is  the  irregularity  that  did  occur  with  duty-free  apparatus  for 
purposes  of  instruction  and  duty-paid  apparatus  for  original  work 
outside  of  universities. 

I  think  it  very  desirable  that  skilled  artisans  should  be  encouraged 
in  this  country  and  the  requirements  of  universities  should  do  this. 
Then,  too,  it  would  encourage  the  making  of  apparatus  by  students, 
which  I  think  very  desirable.  Dr.  Edward  Weston  is  constantly 
training  a  thousand  men  and  women  in  just  such  skill. 

VIEWS    OF    IMPORTERS,   MANUFACTURERS,    AND    OTHERS. 

Eimer  &  Amend:  The  withdrawal  of  duty-free  privilege  heretofore 
enjoyed  by  educational  institutions,  would,  in  our  opinion,  increase 
the  development  of  manufacture  of  such  merchandise  in  the  United 
States,  for  the  following  reasons: 

Goods  can  not  be  manufactured  to  advantage  unless  the  quantities 
desired  from  the  factory  are  large  enough.  If  therefore  the  Govern- 
ment departments  and  large  colleges  order  supplies  from  Europe  in 
sufficient  quantities  to  cover  their  wants  until  the  coming  year,  the 
balance  of  goods  required  by  industrial  laboratories,  who  order  goods 
in  single  or  dozen  quantities,  are  in  most  instances  too  small  to  make 
it  possible  to  manufacture. 

The  whole  chemical  industry  in  the  United  States  would  be 
benefited  because  the  apparatus  houses  will  be  forced  to  carry  a 
much  greater  stock  than  in  times  when  large  orders  were  imported 
from  abroad,  so  that  much  valuable  time  would  be  saved  to  the 
chemical  industry,  due  to  better  service.  The  American  factories 
will  then  also  learn  the  intricacies  of  apparatus  and  instrument 
making  concerning  which  they  have  been  woefully  lacking  in  times 
before.  It  has  been  almost  impossible  to  find  shops  and  factories 
where  either  the  management  possessed  sufficient  scientific  training 
to  understand  what  was  required  or  where  the  workmen  possessed 
sufficient  skill. 

Ceriral  Scientific  Co.:  We  are  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  the 
withdrawal  of  the  duty-free  privilege  and  the  continuance  of  a  fair 
rate  of  duty,  would  increase  the  development  and  manufacture  of 
both  chemical  apparatus  and  chemicals  in  the  United  States.  That 
is  especially  true  of  glassware  and  porcelain,  as  we  believe  the  amount 
used  by  schools  is  necessary  to  increase  the  volume  of  our  manufac- 
ture so  as  to  make  it  profitable.  This  is,  also,  true  of  some  of  what 
mi^ht  be  termed  the  "nyer"  chemicals. 

At  the  present  time,  we  should  say  that  in  articles  used  in  any 
quantities,  the  American  product  is  superior  to  that  formerly  im- 
ported from  Germany.  We  believe  that  the  Pyrex  glassware  is  supe- 
rior to  any  glassware  ever  made.  We  believe  that  we  have  one  or 
two  grades  of  porcelain  equal  to  the  best  imported.  When  we  con- 


CHEMICAL  GLASSWARE.  33 

aider  the  fact  that  the  large  majority  of  the  porcelain  imported  in 
this  country  was  what  was  known  as  the  "German,"  we  would  say 
that  the  schools,  on  an  average,  are  using  better  porcelain  to-day 
than  ever  before.  The  same  is  true  of  boiling  glassware.  In  the 
matter  of  graduated  glassware,  the  average  graduated  ware  of  this 
country  is  equal  to  the  average  that  was  imported.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  cheaper  grades  of  thermometers.  We  can  secure  in  this  coun- 
try normal  glassware  equal  to  that  abroad  but  so  far  the  volume  has 
not  been  worked  up  sufficiently  for  the  prices  to  compare  favorably 
with  the  ones  we  formerly  obtained  abroad.  -  In  regard  to  the  lamp- 
blown  glassware,  this  all  depends  upon  the  manufacturer.  We  be- 
lieve that  there  is  a  tendency  towards  standardization  in  this  country 
such  as  we  have  never  had  before.  We  take  this  stand  on  account 
of  the  experience  that  we  have  had  with  laboratories  criticizing 
glassware  that  has  been  made  in  this  country  within  the  last  year  or 
so.  We  believe  this  to  be  a  good  symptom  and  one  that  was  not 
present  before  the  war,  for  we  are  sure  that  the  word  "German"  was 
taken  as  final  by  a  great  many  of  the  laboratories,  regardless  of  the 
fact  of  whether  the  goods  came  up  to  standard  or  not.  This  criti- 
cism has  been  particularly  helpful  to  the  American  industries. 

Braun-Kneclit  Heimann:  The  sale  of  laboratory  ware  is  limited, 
consequently  manufacturers  can  not  cut  down  the  cost  by  increased 
production.  As  quality  is  the  factor  that  counts,  the  industries 
engaged  in  manufacturing  this  ware  should  receive  positive  protec- 
tion extending  over  a  definite  number  of  years  in  order  to  encourage 
them  in  carrying  on  the  necessary  research  work  to  enable  them  to 
produce  the  highest  grade  product. 

Bausch  &  Lornb  Optical:  We  believe  that  the  increased  cost  per 
student  per  year  in  the  aggregate  would  be  a  small  item,  compared 
to  the  results  achieved  in  establishing  a  more  extended  American 
industry  for  so  important  a  scientific  field. 

We  believe  that  the  effect  of  such  a  change  in  the  scope  and  quality 
of  chemical  research  in  the  United  States  would  be  advantageous, 
as  it  would  lead  to  the  employment  of  men  trained  in  this  field  of 
work  to  a  much  larger  extent  in  the  industries. 

Replying  to  the  questionnaire  another  manufacturer  said: 

We  are  manufacturing  lines  of  scientific  glassware  and  porcelain  of  high  quality, 
which  are  vitally  necessary  to  the  control  of  our  chemical  and  metallurgical  industries. 
Of  course,  it  is  no  longer  necessary  to  point  out  to  you  the  intimate  relation  of  these 
industries  to  the  safety  of  the  Nation  and  the  absolute  need  of  a  self-contained  policy 
on  the  part  of  our  Government  in  fostering  and  encouraging  all  of  these  industries  and 
their  correlates. 

These  articles  were  formerly  imported  from  Germany  and  Austria  exclusively 
and  enjoyed  free  entry  into  our  scientific  and  industrial  schools,  and  helped  to  build 
up  the  German  propagandists'  fallacy  that  everything  of  scientific  value  must  have 
the  stamp  "Made-in-Germany"  upon  it,  not  only  as  it  applied  to  apparatus  and 
equipment,  but  also  as  it  applied  to  the  origin  and  finish  of  scientific  education  and 
training. 

To  our  mind  this  duty-free  entry  of  materials  from  which  our  future  chemical  engi- 
neers studied  has  been  responsible  for  the  failure  of  American  brains  and  capital  to 
compete  until  it  was  certain  that  our  home  market  would  be  assured  to  us  for  the  period 
of  the  war. 

We  further  hope  that  the  importance  of  these  lines  to  American  safety  is  being 
more  deeply  realized  and  that  our  Government  will  take  steps  to  prevent  the  free 
and  unobstructed  competition  of  Austria  and  Germany  after  the  war. 


34  REPORT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  TARIFF   COMMISSION. 

A  leading  article  in  Chemical  and  Metallurgical  Engineering  (Mar. 
1,  1919)  presents  the  following  views: 

We  believe  we  voice  the  patriotic  sentiment  of  every  educational  institution  when 
we  say  that  Congress  should  repeal  that  clause  of  the  tariff  which  permits  the  duty- 
free  importation  of  chemicals  and  apparatus,  and  thus  encourage  American  industry 
in  its  willing  efforts  to  meet  our  own  needs.  It  may  cost  more  money  for  a  time, 
but  the  additional  expense  will  be  welcome  and  we  can  find  solace  in  the  knowledge 
that  we  can  shortly  build  up  a  million-dollar  industry  where  little  or  nothing  existed 
before.  American  manufacturers  have  shown  their  ability  and  their  readiness  imme- 
diately to  supply  our  schools  with  American  products.  American  teachers  undoubt- 
edly are  ready  and  willing  to  patronize  them.  It  remains  only  for  Congress  to  act, 
and  that  should  be  done  speedily  before  German  agents  begin  to  reconstruct  their 
lost  markets.  x 

The  Journal  of  Industrial  and  Engineering  Chemistry  (February, 
1919)  says: 

For  a  number  of  years  educational  institutions  have  been  given  under  congres- 
sional authority  the  privilege  of  importing,  duty  free,  apparatus  and  chemicals  for 
use  in  instruction.  This  is  an  indirect  subsidy  to  education.  It  has  proved  a  curse 
in  disguise,  for  it  resulted  in  a  serious  disturbance  of  university  affairs  when,  through 
the  blockade  of  German  ports,  former  sources  of  supplies  became  unavailable.  Con- 
ditions fully  paralleled  those  in  the  textile  industry,  hitherto  dependent  on  foreign 
dyes.  Naturally  manufacture  of  such  articles  had  not  proved  attractive  to  capital 
in  this  country,  nor  can  we  hope  for  its  development  so  long  as  this  law  exists. 

Frankly,  we  do  not  expect  that  the  privilege  will  any  longer  prove  of  financial 
benefit  to  the  educational  institutions.  Germany  will  have  to  make  the  fullest 
possible  use  of  all  export  trade  to  pay  war  indemnities,  higher  prices  will  therefore 
be  charged,  and  we  believe  it  is  safe  for  American  manufacturers  to  go  ahead.  Our 
confidence  in  that  conviction  is,  however,  rudely  shaken  when  we  ask  ourselves 
the  question:  "Would  you  be  willing  to  put  your  own  funds  into  such  undertakings? ' ' 

The  Council  of  the  American  Chemical  Society  has  recently  expressed  its  con- 
viction in  favor  of  rescinding  this  legislation.  If  Congress  will  act  favorably  upon 
this  recommendation,  American  enterprise  and  skill  will  bring  us  another  step  nearer 
to  economic  independence. 

The  heads  of  chemical  departments  of  20  American  universities  and 
scientific  institutions,  in  1918,  were  asked  if  the  withdrawal  of  the 
duty-free  privilege,  heretofore  enjoyed  by  educational  institutions, 
and  the  continuance  of  the  present  rates  of  duty  on  apparatus  and 
chemicals  would  increase  the  development  and  manufacture  of  such 
merchandise  in  the  United  States.  Of  the  20,  17  stated  that  the 
withdrawal  of  the  duty-free  privilege  would  increase  the  development 
and  manufacture  of  chemical  articles;  1  said  it  would  have  little 
effect;  1  answered  in  the  negative;  and  1  was  noncommittal.  Of  8 
of  the  principal  importers  and  dealers,  6  answered  yes,  1  answered  no, 
and  1  was  noncommittal. 

Eight  of  the  20  heads  of  the  chemical  departments  above  men- 
tioned stated  that  the  benefit  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  duty-free 
privilege  to  the  chemical  industry  as  a  whole  would  sufficiently 
justify  the  possible  loss  to  educational  institutions,  while  12  either 
thought  it  would  not  do  so  or  were  doubtful. 

LIST  OF  MANUFACTURERS  OF  CHEMICAL  GLASSWARE. 

Corning  Glass  Works,  Corning,  N.  Y. 
Whitall  Tatum  Co.,  Millville,  N.  J. 
H.  C.  Fry  Glass  Co.,  Rochester,  Pa. 
Kimble  Glass  Co.,  Vineland,  N.  J. 
Macbeth-Evans  Glass  Co.,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 
T.  C.  Wheaton  Co.,  Millville,  N.  J. 
Cambridge  Glass  Co.,  Cambridge,  Ohio. 


CHEMICAL,  GLASSWARE.  35 

LIST  OF  SHOPS  MAKING  LAMP-BLOWN  AND  VOLUMETRIC  WARE. 

Eimer  &  Amend,  205  Third  Avenue,  New  York  City. 

Scientific  Materials  Co.,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

Vineland  Scientific  Glass  Co.,  Vineland,  N.  J. 

F.  Pierce  Noble  Glass  Factory,  Conshohocken,  Pa. 

Griebel  Instrument  Co.,  Carbondale,  Pa. 

Louis  F.  Nafis  (Inc.),  544  Washington  Boulevard,  Chicago,  111. 

A.  Daigger  &  Co.,  54  West  Kinzie  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

Sanitary  Fermentation  Tube  &  T.  Co.,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

Globe  Graduating  Co.,  Millville,  N.  J. 

Independent  Glass  Apparatus  Co.,  7  South  Forty-eighth  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Calta  Glass  Works,  460  East  Ohio  Street,  Chicago,  111. 

Philadelphia  Scientific  Glass  Works,  1505  North  Wanock  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

o 


A    001274494 


